This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]


On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:44 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So with all this it sounds that current protected visibility is just
>>>> broken and we should forgo with it, making it equal to default
>>>> visibility?
>>>
>>> Like how?  You mean in GCC regarding protected as default visibility?  No,
>>> that's just throwing out the baby with the water.  We should make
>>> protected do what it was intended to do and accept that not all invariants
>>> that are true for default visible symbols are also true for protected
>>> symbols, possibly by ...
>>>
>>>> At least I couldn't decipher a solution that solves all of the issues
>>>> with protected visibility apart from trying to error at link-time (or
>>>> runtime?) for the cases that are tricky (impossible?) to solve.
>>>
>>> ... this.
>>
>> Right. Protected visibility worked fine without copy relocations for
>> 15 years until HJ's patch. I don't know of anyone with a legitimate
>> complaint about that until HJ filed a bug based on his artificial test
>> case.
>
> Cary, please stop spreading the incorrect information.   There is
> at lease one GCC bug against protected symbol:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55012
>
> which was reported by other people.

I opened this bug in 2005:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520

Richard opened:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51880

in 2012.

-- 
H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]