From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7116 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2016 19:51:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 7105 invoked by uid 89); 1 Apr 2016 19:51:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 19:51:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18FF43DD47; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from slagheap.utah.redhat.com (ovpn-113-72.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.72]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u31JpXl4002708; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 15:51:33 -0400 Subject: Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 To: Cary Coutant References: <983472E1-A1BC-4970-9CF9-0138A6BAD16D@apple.com> <6AAD87D2-90F9-4AD7-A195-AC91B76EA6AE@apple.com> <56FB5061.9010303@redhat.com> Cc: "H.J. Lu" , Joe Groff , Alan Modra , Binutils From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <56FED145.80307@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 19:51:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 On 03/30/2016 06:40 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: >> It would help me immensely on the GCC side if things if you and Alan could >> easily summarize correct behavior and the impact if we were to just revert >> HJ's change. A testcase would be amazingly helpful too. > > It looks like it's not just the one change. There's this patch: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01871.html > > which took the idea that protected can still be pre-empted by a COPY > relocation and extended it to three more targets that use COPY > relocations. > > I wonder how many other patches have been based on the same misunderstanding? The patches around BZ65780 may be tangled in this mess as well. And it bled into the s390 & darwin ports as well. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780 Alan, could you take a peek at 65780 -- you're better versed than I in this stuff. Essentially the question that needs to be answered is if we roll back 65280, do we need to also roll back 65780? jeff