From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 0A16C3853C13; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:53:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0A16C3853C13
From: "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/101726] target_clone resolver does not generate PIC
 despite -fPIC
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:53:36 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101726-4-nalsyaVwCi@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101726-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101726-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:53:37 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101726

--- Comment #5 from Martin Li=C5=A1ka <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Stefan Kneifel from comment #4)
> Yes, but a programmer might choose to implement target clones for a shared
> library using another language, e.g. hand-optimized assembler code (this =
was
> the actual problem I had).

Ah, I hadn't thought about such a use case.

> Forbidding target_clone declarations would make that solution impossible,
> which should IMHO not be the case. To my opinion, the original solution (=
if
> the target_clone function declaration is public, then it should be regard=
ed
> as public) is the most consequent one.

All right, I'm going to send such a patch.=