This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils 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 04/19/2016 02:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Alan Modra <> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:59:50AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Alan Modra <> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
To summarize: there is currently no testcase for a wrong-code issue
because there is no wrong-code issue.

I've added a testcase at
that shows the address problem (&x != x) with older gcc *or* older
glibc, and shows the program behaviour problem with current


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?
No, we revert to the gcc-4.9 behavior WRT protected visibility and ensure that we're getting a proper diagnostic from the linker.

That direction is consistent with the intent of protected visibility, fixes the problem with preemption of protected symbols and gives us a diagnostic for the case that can't be reasonably handled.


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