[lld] r295632 - Add more comments about copy relocations.

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

> Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>
> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 06:16:08PM -0800, Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits
> wrote:
> >> Are you suggesting I bring it up to the LLVM blog? This comment is my
> >> opinion, and I guess not everybody agrees we should avoid exporting
> globals
> >> from DSOs.
> >
> > Sadly, the accessor approach is expensive and often not a choice. A
> > better way would be to provide an attribute to force GOT-based access
> > even in non-PIC mode. We are slowly getting the necessary relocations on
> > the modern platforms at least.
>
> I have adding a -fno-copy-reloc to clang in my todo list. But a library
> author should at least document that copy relocations are not guaranteed
> to work after an upgrade.
>

How does that -fno-copy-reloc option work?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170221/b1bd1ee7/attachment.html>