This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Joe Groff <jgroff at apple dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:44:16 -0700
- Subject: Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6AAD87D2-90F9-4AD7-A195-AC91B76EA6AE at apple dot com> <CAMe9rOqNcYnm1YocG-m7XNDE0g68YQAGe=ULP-G98gaatpxSeA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAJimCsHfT=cfb4kZysB2W_1HFfOq==TpP=wa47XPGB41MHmGyQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <56FB5061 dot 9010303 at redhat dot com> <20160330143421 dot GM15812 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <571161D0 dot 10601 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOpt2Fd6RLtjr10wCHz9PVsXxtO9a0yvMR_DeHt1OK0ieg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc2PFQdiUj=UPY8HLv+PjwVaNpcvDW6Skp8JC4DR56MkBg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160418144911 dot GG15088 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOog=FJ2Si-mUqHYoOsHVwVFcZavT4X7wQdRjRhbDDWRvQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160419050805 dot GI15088 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAFiYyc1NJD0LAW2Mxe+xdgizTd3j7A9gwHEzHJA3A+hWpDO+Ew at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1604191603210 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAJimCsGzx_pb0mpwYDH0am9sD3h9J_Y3fQKZe_SP8Ne+d_q+VQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Cary Coutant <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
>> 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
Cary, please stop spreading the incorrect information. There is
at lease one GCC bug against protected symbol:
which was reported by other people.