From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10918 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2005 03:31:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10905 invoked by uid 48); 19 Jan 2005 03:31:41 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050119033141.10904.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050119002432.19520.hjl@lucon.org> References: <20050119002432.19520.hjl@lucon.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/19520] protected function pointer doesn't work right X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg02570.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19 03:31 ------- So help out here, which is more correct the GOT or the GOTOFF?(In reply to comment #7) > Please take a closer look at the testcase. It is different from > bug 10908. Basically, main executable and DSO see different > function pointer values for the SAME function. From the linker That comment is only for the PPC bfd so it cannot apply to x86 :). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520