This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Joe Groff <jgroff at apple dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:04:59 -0700
- Subject: Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <9106B2FB-BB06-413A-A04D-EEFB992784FA at apple dot com> <CAJimCsEzZ8GDByd8r9x5J9sQ__V0o1mn21FD1xLPe7OhWdikKQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqipnAMa-OeYfks6=FYRffxSrcLuJnJD=wX-PjoKcGWRA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAJimCsFxza3TWVXorqYLa--SfUZ_LznR=m2GkJ_Mq6YZ9Ga3YQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOphSdEp8mO7OpuEAVpUz-hT8eRb=6RJmaP1XWvDC_UNpQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAJimCsHGnHp+s4OXVMt5K=AOsz=nPqY_W7L_M0Ey5rSdK7nk1g at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Cary Coutant <email@example.com> wrote:
>> What you are proposing is to disallow copy relocation against
>> protected symbol. Am I correct?
> Yes. That's what PR gold/19823 is about. I claim that GCC PR 55012
> should have been resolved as "working as intended", and that your
> patches for GCC PR 65248 should never have been applied (curiously, I
> can't find any actual approval for the GCC patch). I'm sorry I missed
> those conversations -- I would have raised bloody hell at the time.
> I'm surprised that no one else did.
What relocation do you propose to access external protected
symbol on x86 for non-PIC code?