--- /dev/null
+From 82fdddd1c4e37881db9b4c6a944261521c6f10ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au>
+Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 00:57:59 +0000
+Subject: [PATCH] PR ld/13470 * elf32-ppc.c
+ (ppc_elf_copy_indirect_symbol): Revert substantive
+ change in 2011-07-01 commit. Comment. *
+ elf64-ppc.c (ppc64_elf_copy_indirect_symbol): Likewise.
+
+---
+ bfd/ChangeLog | 7 +++++++
+ bfd/elf32-ppc.c | 14 ++++++++++----
+ bfd/elf64-ppc.c | 14 ++++++++++----
+ 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
+
+
+Upstream-Status: Backport
+
+Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
+Index: binutils-2.22/bfd/elf32-ppc.c
+===================================================================
+--- binutils-2.22.orig/bfd/elf32-ppc.c 2011-11-21 01:29:21.000000000 -0800
++++ binutils-2.22/bfd/elf32-ppc.c 2012-05-31 14:28:48.273784929 -0700
+@@ -2987,10 +2987,6 @@
+ edir->elf.needs_plt |= eind->elf.needs_plt;
+ edir->elf.pointer_equality_needed |= eind->elf.pointer_equality_needed;
+
+- /* If we were called to copy over info for a weak sym, that's all. */
+- if (eind->elf.root.type != bfd_link_hash_indirect)
+- return;
+-
+ if (eind->dyn_relocs != NULL)
+ {
+ if (edir->dyn_relocs != NULL)
+@@ -3022,6 +3018,16 @@
+ eind->dyn_relocs = NULL;
+ }
+
++ /* If we were called to copy over info for a weak sym, that's all.
++ You might think dyn_relocs need not be copied over; After all,
++ both syms will be dynamic or both non-dynamic so we're just
++ moving reloc accounting around. However, ELIMINATE_COPY_RELOCS
++ code in ppc_elf_adjust_dynamic_symbol needs to check for
++ dyn_relocs in read-only sections, and it does so on what is the
++ DIR sym here. */
++ if (eind->elf.root.type != bfd_link_hash_indirect)
++ return;
++
+ /* Copy over the GOT refcount entries that we may have already seen to
+ the symbol which just became indirect. */
+ edir->elf.got.refcount += eind->elf.got.refcount;
+Index: binutils-2.22/bfd/elf64-ppc.c
+===================================================================
+--- binutils-2.22.orig/bfd/elf64-ppc.c 2011-11-21 01:29:24.000000000 -0800
++++ binutils-2.22/bfd/elf64-ppc.c 2012-05-31 14:28:48.285784951 -0700
+@@ -4435,10 +4435,6 @@
+ edir->elf.ref_regular_nonweak |= eind->elf.ref_regular_nonweak;
+ edir->elf.needs_plt |= eind->elf.needs_plt;
+
+- /* If we were called to copy over info for a weak sym, that's all. */
+- if (eind->elf.root.type != bfd_link_hash_indirect)
+- return;
+-
+ /* Copy over any dynamic relocs we may have on the indirect sym. */
+ if (eind->dyn_relocs != NULL)
+ {
+@@ -4471,6 +4467,16 @@
+ eind->dyn_relocs = NULL;
+ }
+
++ /* If we were called to copy over info for a weak sym, that's all.
++ You might think dyn_relocs need not be copied over; After all,
++ both syms will be dynamic or both non-dynamic so we're just
++ moving reloc accounting around. However, ELIMINATE_COPY_RELOCS
++ code in ppc64_elf_adjust_dynamic_symbol needs to check for
++ dyn_relocs in read-only sections, and it does so on what is the
++ DIR sym here. */
++ if (eind->elf.root.type != bfd_link_hash_indirect)
++ return;
++
+ /* Copy over got entries that we may have already seen to the
+ symbol which just became indirect. */
+ if (eind->elf.got.glist != NULL)
