Pedro Alves palves@redhat.com
Fri Oct 6 12:11:00 GMT 2017

• Previous message (by thread): [committed, PATCH] x86: Add POINTER_LOCAL_IFUNC_P/PLT_LOCAL_IFUNC_P
• Next message (by thread): [committed, PATCH] x86: Add POINTER_LOCAL_IFUNC_P/PLT_LOCAL_IFUNC_P
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On 10/06/2017 08:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> +/* TRUE if this is a PLT reference to a local IFUNC.  */
> +#define PLT_LOCAL_IFUNC_P(INFO, H) \
> +  ((H)->dynindx == -1 \
> +   || ((bfd_link_executable (INFO) \
> +	|| ELF_ST_VISIBILITY ((H)->other) != STV_DEFAULT) \
> +	&& (H)->def_regular \
> +	&& (H)->type == STT_GNU_IFUNC))
> +

OOC, is there a good reason these things are macros
instead of (static inline) functions?

Thanks,
Pedro Alves

---

• Previous message (by thread): [committed, PATCH] x86: Add POINTER_LOCAL_IFUNC_P/PLT_LOCAL_IFUNC_P
• Next message (by thread): [committed, PATCH] x86: Add POINTER_LOCAL_IFUNC_P/PLT_LOCAL_IFUNC_P
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Binutils mailing list