From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21744 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2005 13:16:02 -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 21573 invoked by uid 48); 2 Feb 2005 13:15:47 -0000 Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050202131547.21572.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "amodra at bigpond dot net dot au" 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: 2005-02/txt/msg00200.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-02-02 13:15 ------- Confirming that the bug is real. I can't say I like HJ's solution though. It seems to require that ld.so resolve a protected symbol in a shared library to a symbol defined in the main app. That's weird. In other cases you don't want ld.so to do that, for instance when the main app defines a function with the same name as a protected library function. I think it might be difficult for ld.so to choose the right symbol, especially for the general case of multiple levels of shared libraries. Another problem is that making protected functions non-local prevents certain optimizations, for example see alias.c:mark_constant_function. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed| |1 Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-02-02 13:15:45 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520