From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124217 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2016 15:52:24 -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 124191 invoked by uid 89); 19 Apr 2016 15:52:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=ccoutant@gmail.com, ccoutantgmailcom, water, his X-HELO: mail-qg0-f44.google.com Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-qg0-f44.google.com) (209.85.192.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:52:14 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f74so10126486qge.2 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:52:13 -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=moFhXTh0AseWcH1f/xYf++d7+hVGy/Bsgdm4et+CCEM=; b=ennTPhAUo/73gzIzl02OoTIa6JdkeIIaaoXwKxc55LHnbaYvvb/XGEjRv5lGx1O+a+ Mk2G1JnzQoJLonfvCDg0BlYrnV+t3oCHzymzEPvIr9mXiJecFmwRNEFbLbKNiQrDugIt k6vUAuOnafiG2Cb4o5+V09oP8mTv2RqnQwpVOzhogNGnHDZeS59Ay68zoQWO0/PXlq0r YkgcdB/Gf/5xd/Uh80sBIAe72b+JniU9KNjedyXFVYy0J2XthA0Ccf+myXDw9NyYy9zu U7GByILoZyV6NoY9EvcnsShIjJXGtoqqIiJ2eQPYxYeGbtQ51SwPX/kfOm+a+EXxYHtm /1Bg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVZ0Z9sbpqpm635/7VEcOGoBLYUn8ry25tXIQU+6bouHtvHklOxqYZ+RghJygUjYcWIa66Xp4/2VaEZvQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.228.68 with SMTP id y65mr4623407qhb.47.1461081131648; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.55.217.134 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6AAD87D2-90F9-4AD7-A195-AC91B76EA6AE@apple.com> <56FB5061.9010303@redhat.com> <20160330143421.GM15812@bubble.grove.modra.org> <571161D0.10601@redhat.com> <20160418144911.GG15088@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20160419050805.GI15088@bubble.grove.modra.org> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248] From: "H.J. Lu" To: Cary Coutant Cc: Michael Matz , Richard Biener , Alan Modra , Jeff Law , Joe Groff , Binutils , GCC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:44 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Cary Coutant 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. >>> >>> ... this. >> >> Right. Protected visibility worked fine without copy relocations for >> 15 years until HJ's patch. I don't know of anyone with a legitimate >> complaint about that until HJ filed a bug based on his artificial test >> case. > > Cary, please stop spreading the incorrect information. There is > at lease one GCC bug against protected symbol: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55012 > > which was reported by other people. I opened this bug in 2005: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520 Richard opened: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51880 in 2012. -- H.J.