[PATCH] D35595: Bring back r307364

[Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-commits]

Shoaib Meenai via Phabricator <reviews at reviews.llvm.org> writes:

> Okay, that makes sense. Are we not necessarily trying to mimic bfd's behavior then?

As a general rule, we try to be close enough to make lld an easy
replacement for bfd, but we are not bug by bug compatible.

> I'm slightly confused in general (and I apologize for jumping in
> without having the full context, but I've had to deal a bunch of
> symbol versioning issues internally, and I'm also working on switching
> things over to LLD, so I want to make sure I understand LLD's intended
> behavior for versioning). From what I understand, this patch is meant
> to restore https://reviews.llvm.org/D35059 while fixing the case in
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33820.

Correct.

>Shouldn't there be an additional test case for the issue in that bug? As far as I can see the test cases here are the same as the ones from https://reviews.llvm.org/D35059.

Since the original patch was reverted, I added the test already. It is test/ELF/version-script-twice.s.

> ================
> Comment at: ELF/SymbolTable.cpp:246
> +
> +    // This is for the case where the link has both foo and foo at ver.
> +    // The reason this happens is because given
> ----------------
> This is meant to address the case from https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33820, right?

Correct.

Cheers,
Rafael