From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-91805-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 110107 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2016 14:06:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 110079 invoked by uid 89); 19 Apr 2016 14:06:16 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=baby, water
X-HELO: mx2.suse.de
Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:06:06 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254])	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44EC6ABB2;	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:06:01 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:06:00 -0000
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
cc: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@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]
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc1NJD0LAW2Mxe+xdgizTd3j7A9gwHEzHJA3A+hWpDO+Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1604191603210.20277@wotan.suse.de>
References: <6AAD87D2-90F9-4AD7-A195-AC91B76EA6AE@apple.com> <CAMe9rOqNcYnm1YocG-m7XNDE0g68YQAGe=ULP-G98gaatpxSeA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJimCsHfT=cfb4kZysB2W_1HFfOq==TpP=wa47XPGB41MHmGyQ@mail.gmail.com> <56FB5061.9010303@redhat.com> <20160330143421.GM15812@bubble.grove.modra.org> <571161D0.10601@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOpt2Fd6RLtjr10wCHz9PVsXxtO9a0yvMR_DeHt1OK0ieg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc2PFQdiUj=UPY8HLv+PjwVaNpcvDW6Skp8JC4DR56MkBg@mail.gmail.com> <20160418144911.GG15088@bubble.grove.modra.org> <CAMe9rOog=FJ2Si-mUqHYoOsHVwVFcZavT4X7wQdRjRhbDDWRvQ@mail.gmail.com> <20160419050805.GI15088@bubble.grove.modra.org> <CAFiYyc1NJD0LAW2Mxe+xdgizTd3j7A9gwHEzHJA3A+hWpDO+Ew@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2

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.

... this.


Ciao,
Michael.