From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7536 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2016 15:54:16 -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 7515 invoked by uid 89); 19 Apr 2016 15:54:16 -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=ccoutantgmailcom, ccoutant@gmail.com, water, his X-HELO: mail-qg0-f47.google.com Received: from mail-qg0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-qg0-f47.google.com) (209.85.192.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:54:05 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id f74so10159426qge.2 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:54:05 -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=8UQffOR+EXQ9huEkna4i4bnTyEuRrvawy0y6eJquZRM=; b=PyheIh5JGUw4xuTo0FyDpV3Defgph9VX1vrqfDy6Vx9sah19FsJ008/3gmS3GuivQ/ FBCVAWiIXbzdiz/myWZhAI6M2NsTA6joBzvKp/18QESubt+HK+vLD6cG3DQTE5FhwErx wQdyjVnRAoy+PjxNXWzp1OztxVJitSxBdIQIDUqc8FSSHbLlRGJ9Pop7et2hn0agLFQc V8FJYj+romD16hxjTSH0N4YLWOf7CUB8F7sLEn837/7JpymMLLcgndQ/rnWXiBvW+PpP dAi2t4c1oBC6SGAszNQyzaqqFNLODOr94ccT/u5VddKQF7ExhLoRnVerEHbbkIGce2Sy 5VNg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FU29V2SshA0Ds1CacV9xXEOpOPP/19qkvD7l/mOx6Ky1uRdUfzYUunItrakssHb+OBKUoVoWWCxsyqpIQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.248.8 with SMTP id t8mr4703124qhc.50.1461081243645; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.55.217.134 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:54:03 -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 15:54:00 -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/msg00301.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > 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. > Another old bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10908 -- H.J.