public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libgcc/109054] _Unwind_GetLanguageSpecificData should have protected visibility
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2023 15:53:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-109054-4-eEztPWv9KP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-109054-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109054

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Protected visibility is always wrong, it is broken by design (or lack thereof).
The _Unwind_* APIs are required by the Itanium ABI, and we call various other
such functions from libgcc code already (e.g. _Unwind_Find_FDE from
_Unwind_FindEnclosingFunction and uw_frame_state_for and others,
_Unwind_GetTextRelBase, _Unwind_GetRegionStart,
_Unwind_GetDataRelBase, _Unwind_SetGR, _Unwind_SetIP, _Unwind_GetIPInfo and
_Unwind_GetCFA from various spots, _Unwind_RaiseException from
_Unwind_Resume_or_Rethrow
etc.).
It is IMHO very bad idea to have 2 different unwinders in the same process with
the same exported functions.
If you'd like libgcc to call local aliases of these functions instead of those
functions, I'm afraid it could break various things, e.g. i?86 glibc exports
_Unwind_Find_FDE too and we rely on a single registry for all unwinding.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-07 15:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-07 15:39 [Bug libgcc/109054] New: " woodard at redhat dot com
2023-03-07 15:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-03-07 16:16 ` [Bug libgcc/109054] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-07 17:42 ` woodard at redhat dot com
2023-03-07 17:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-07 17:58 ` woodard at redhat dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-109054-4-eEztPWv9KP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).