From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 45108 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2019 11:13:29 -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 43349 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jan 2019 11:13:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:13:27 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 595CC12F910; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.117.50] (ovpn-117-50.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.50]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2105D6A6; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:13:25 +0000 (UTC) To: Sebastian Huber Cc: binutils References: <652b60f1-9606-0c56-aa32-117d727c1caf@redhat.com> <1e2df1b6-5395-6fe6-26c2-97a7395682f7@redhat.com> <555e8397-e46a-a5a5-8882-f1a34f330826@embedded-brains.de> <1592573775.72454.1546631126106.JavaMail.zimbra@embedded-brains.de> <325560131.73730.1546714333253.JavaMail.zimbra@embedded-brains.de> From: Nick Clifton Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Subject: Re: Does the LD --wrap feature work for library internal references? Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <325560131.73730.1546714333253.JavaMail.zimbra@embedded-brains.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2 Hi Sebastian, > The f() function returns a function pointer to g(). The indirect (*gg)() call is not wrapped, the direct g() call is wrapped. Yeah, I get this too. :-( > Is this a bug or a feature? Well I would have to say "bug", although I think that it is really a case of expecting too much of a feature that was really only intended to catch ordinary function calls. I have no idea how to fix it however, so maybe the best that we can is to update the documentation.... Cheers Nick