today I found some code in LLVM that implies a Windows plus Mach-O subtarget is legal and I don't want to be alive anymore
-
-
C and C++ do not specify dynamic libraries, so personally IDGAF. The ELF defaults (like "default" visibility) are bad and break things
-
The ELF defaults are what make dynamic linking a semantically equivalent replacement for linking everything statically. But this is all OT..
-
...since my comment was about using ELF for .o files, not .so/executable files, & the former is before any dynamic linking semantics appear.
-
PE dynamic linking semantics are present in .o files. This is an optimization for functions (bypass the PLT equiv) and *required* for data
-
Pretty sure you can represent those relocations just fine in ELF, but I'd have to review how they're done to go into detail.
-
Sure. But at this point you have PE-flavor-ELF files so may as well just use PE .o files
-
No, then you have N versions of the code for .o file stuff rather than 1 version, and likely an awful (BFD) pseudo-abstraction around them.
-
BFD is mostly bad because it tries to abstract linking, not just producing object files.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.