From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Cc: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,
Cary Coutant <ccoutant@gmail.com>, Joe Groff <jgroff@apple.com>,
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: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:11:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOpEH+74x4svzJbhYLAGJ31ddOBRdQpEu03==nRAVf_h2w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1604191603210.20277@wotan.suse.de>
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.
--
H.J.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-19 19:11 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 [this message]
2016-04-19 20:17 ` Rich Felker
2016-04-19 21:03 ` Cary Coutant
2016-04-20 17:45 ` anonymous
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='CAMe9rOpEH+74x4svzJbhYLAGJ31ddOBRdQpEu03==nRAVf_h2w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=amodra@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=ccoutant@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jgroff@apple.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/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).