From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 113211 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2016 00:40:18 -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 113201 invoked by uid 89); 31 Mar 2016 00:40:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:633 X-HELO: mail-io0-f169.google.com Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-io0-f169.google.com) (209.85.223.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:40:07 +0000 Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e3so96379726ioa.1 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:40:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=4dA+knN6anfmdVDy68s53SJlBVl+5pkM7igNfq8MlkQ=; b=JSD4snN/5c0ms+F5NJeSzNcGf6k2wnDIjhTUB+kM7z/rlx4PgkU8vma09swSxu+gOs Yai7X17TZccWkSz1brlWeI3QndVQbwMcWkRdTgmnwbycm3WdWdFO0QHBYbjERsLH4SGP RxQ71+fYE+jYB/WQzmBlNKr/CeLdLbgyANYirWkODjnGkUlSSjJKB7uLssJiWwi11b+F 0Q2On/v3OaW6B1VQhO47lrerN4o5PCJaiWAgBV2STD0uGS2eeBysKzzQAFm2tA0vzmHn TklyjrkuQqFcdd5VUvxSIc8GubUpZHabnp1Y4c+ScIG60qhl9b3UnnxRzWRhM80xu/SD RpiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLEH+TJxErvtndCdGafwUNHjJIqi/UihhPfj4nudhz4be405W+HW8exTNBNXZY8Nc7v3K5IdTxI6IiozA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.135.74 with SMTP id j71mr269423iod.133.1459384805257; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.200.8 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:40:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56FB5061.9010303@redhat.com> References: <983472E1-A1BC-4970-9CF9-0138A6BAD16D@apple.com> <6AAD87D2-90F9-4AD7-A195-AC91B76EA6AE@apple.com> <56FB5061.9010303@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 From: Cary Coutant To: Jeff Law Cc: "H.J. Lu" , Joe Groff , Alan Modra , Binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00444.txt.bz2 > 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? -cary