From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13147 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2015 18:16:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13114 invoked by uid 89); 12 Feb 2015 18:16:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oi0-f51.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f51.google.com) (209.85.218.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:16:42 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id g201so4628105oib.10 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:16:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.246.69 with SMTP id xu5mr3634735obc.11.1423765000343; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:16:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.134.102 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:16:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54DC46BF.5060503@redhat.com> References: <20150206162314.GA12597@intel.com> <20150207122739.GA25185@gmail.com> <20150207155606.GA14159@gmail.com> <20150207164507.GA19402@gmail.com> <54DA75D2.40402@redhat.com> <54DC46BF.5060503@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR rtl-optimization/32219: optimizer causees wrong code in pic/hidden/weak symbol checking From: "H.J. Lu" To: Richard Henderson Cc: Jack Howarth , GCC Patches , Mike Stump , Iain Sandoe , Jan Hubicka Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00784.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 02/10/2015 01:19 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> As an existing issue, I'm not sure why "specified" visibility is any different >> from unspecified visibility. As far as I'm aware, the "specified" bit simply >> means that the decl doesn't inherit inherit visibility from the class, or from >> the command-line. But once we're this far, the visibility actually applied to >> the symbol should be all that matters. > > The test is there to differentiate explicit visibility from that implied from > the command-line. Without it, we assume hidden visibility for external symbols > too early, making the command-line option useless. This is visible even in > building libgcc. > > I believe this set of patches does what we want, and cleans things up a bit in > the process. > > I tried them on Linux/x86-64. They caused: FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT -- H.J.