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 88E373858D38; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:22:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 88E373858D38
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1705396949;
	bh=CQ83KKxoGsyahqne/M2/Kk4utHT8ZYKoZ5xpkuVwtTs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=yXV5B5XkGYnY18OAi/++gJhEwzt0PcDZi0JicEcydqSi/v8qW0PMX3PEUQbB6mJ7r
	 e1xNWPlCUP95FV9+wF5Iu4vCtE4KIcS7IFuPVc+k8lrMRszmN4SvcxMEbI1eCxhtrz
	 iv4ZbwwjP/7XduDuNFXMSCqr/MwDYKTQrP/nW3oI=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libgcc/113403] [14 Regression]
 __builtin_nested_func_ptr_created, __builtin_nested_func_ptr should be
 dynamically linked by default
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:22:29 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libgcc
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113403-4-bhZF7t0kuz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113403-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113403-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113403

--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> it is an optimisation, yes - but as Richi points out, if we change this it
> will affect ABI - so it is ideal to do this before the first release that
> includes it?
>=20
>=20
> - IIUC Jakub's suggestion:
>  - remove the functions from libgcc.a

Not necessarily, just maybe.
We do that thing with libgcc_eh.a (unwinder is in libgcc_eh.a and libgcc_s.=
so.1
and not in libgcc.a).
Or put it in libgcc_eh.a and libgcc_s.so.1?
It is not unwinder, but shares the central registry property with it.

>  - add a spec to gcc/gcc.cc like=20
>   %{!static:%(!static-libgcc:%(ftrampoline-impl=3Dheap: -shared-libgcc }}}

Either that, or do something like cp/g++spec.cc does with shared_libgcc.
Whatever works.=