From: anonymous <johnandsara2@cox.net>
Cc: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5717B8A5.4070905@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOpEH+74x4svzJbhYLAGJ31ddOBRdQpEu03==nRAVf_h2w@mail.gmail.com>
H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Richard Biener 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
>>> visibility?
>> 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.
>
> Protected visibility is a useful feature. But as it stands today,
> it is pretty much useless on x86 as seen in ld and ld.so. We
> have known this defect for a long time, almost from day 1. To
> make it truly useful, we need to clearly spell out how and when
> it can be used. We should enforce its limitation in compiler,
> ld and ld.so so that there is no surprise, either for correctness or
> performance, at run-time.
>
>
my prefference would be if you (re)add it: do so such that there is no
portability issue with next or previous gcc version (or other cc if
possible), and that it be left as optional with a quick note that it is,
and insure both on and off both build w/o fail in doing so. picky?
thank you, have a nice day!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-20 17:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <AB592ABD-D6D7-4D2F-A0D6-45738F168DC4@apple.com>
2016-03-29 19:31 ` Fwd: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 Joe Groff
2016-03-29 19:33 ` H.J. Lu
2016-03-29 19:36 ` Joe Groff
2016-03-29 19:43 ` H.J. Lu
2016-03-29 19:51 ` Joe Groff
2016-03-29 19:54 ` H.J. Lu
2016-03-29 22:05 ` H.J. Lu
2016-03-30 1:44 ` Alan Modra
2016-03-30 1:46 ` Cary Coutant
2016-03-30 4:04 ` Jeff Law
2016-03-30 7:20 ` Cary Coutant
2016-03-30 7:34 ` Cary Coutant
2016-03-30 14:44 ` Alan Modra
2016-03-31 0:45 ` Cary Coutant
2016-04-15 21:49 ` Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248] Jeff Law
2016-04-15 21:56 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-18 9:02 ` Richard Biener
2016-04-18 14:49 ` Alan Modra
2016-04-18 14:59 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-18 17:04 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2016-04-18 17:09 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-18 17:24 ` Michael Matz
2016-04-18 17:27 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-18 18:52 ` Jakub Jelinek
2016-04-18 19:28 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-18 17:55 ` Cary Coutant
2016-04-25 17:24 ` Jeff Law
2016-04-25 17:31 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-18 17:57 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2016-04-19 5:08 ` Alan Modra
2016-04-19 8:20 ` Richard Biener
2016-04-19 9:53 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2016-04-19 14:06 ` Michael Matz
2016-04-19 15:37 ` Cary Coutant
2016-04-19 15:44 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-19 15:52 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-19 15:54 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-19 15:58 ` Cary Coutant
2016-04-19 16:00 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-19 15:54 ` Cary Coutant
2016-04-19 19:11 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-19 20:17 ` Rich Felker
2016-04-19 21:03 ` Cary Coutant
2016-04-20 17:45 ` anonymous [this message]
2016-04-19 15:46 ` Alan Modra
2016-04-25 17:35 ` Jeff Law
2016-04-26 5:55 ` Alan Modra
2016-04-26 8:13 ` Jakub Jelinek
2016-04-18 17:05 ` Cary Coutant
2016-03-31 0:40 ` Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 Cary Coutant
2016-03-31 0:53 ` Jeff Law
2016-03-31 13:27 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2016-03-31 15:05 ` H.J. Lu
2016-04-15 16:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2016-04-01 19:51 ` Jeff Law
2016-04-02 2:53 ` Alan Modra
2016-04-19 19:47 ` Fwd: " Rich Felker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5717B8A5.4070905@cox.net \
--to=johnandsara2@cox.net \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).