This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GNU indirect functions vs. symbol visibility
- From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Alexander Monakov <amonakov at ispras dot ru>, Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:36:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: GNU indirect functions vs. symbol visibility
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160824004429.GW3677@bubble.grove.modra.org> <alpine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20160825015222.GX3677@bubble.grove.modra.org>
* Alan Modra:
> glibc people: As the main user of ifuncs, how do you feel about not
> declaring functions hidden that are implemented in glibc by ifuncs?
We have run into this before, I think:
> It's fine to make them hidden via a version script, or even define
> them as hidden (which requires just the rs6000_elf_encode_section_info
> part of my gcc patch to make ppc32 behave).
If it doesn't work, we'd certainly prefer an early diagnostic.