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 Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/18/2016 11:55 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is why protected visibility is such a mess.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not mess, but it comes with certain limitations.  And that's okay.  It's
>>> intended as an optimization, and it should do that optimization if
>>> requested, and error out if it can't be done for whatever reason.
>>
>>
>> I completely agree.
>
> ISTM this ought to be the guiding principle here, with the additional caveat
> that if one of the limitations is tickled that we issue a good diagnostic.
>
> The current situation (gcc-5, gcc-6-rc) essentially de-optimizes protected
> systems in an attempt to work around the various limitations of protected
> symbols.  Reverting that change is, IMHO, what needs to happen.  My worry is
> that we're so damn late in the gcc-6 cycle that it may need to be deferred
> to 6.2 or beyond.

Please keep in mind that many limitations can only be detected at
link-time or run-time, which are yet to be implemented,  not at
compile-time.

-- 
H.J.


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