[Bug ld/27210] ld: Don't suppress foo if foo@v1 is defined

[i at maskray dot me]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27210

--- Comment #5 from Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> ---
The explanation is not convincing. foo and foo@v1 are two different symbols. 
My example does not use an undefined symbol so I don't see how

> shouldn't be used by ld to satisfy the unversioned reference.

is relevant.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.