From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 78935 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2017 09:28:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 78919 invoked by uid 89); 23 Aug 2017 09:28:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com EAF147EA8A Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] have ifunc resolver's return type match target To: Martin Sebor , GNU C Library References: From: Florian Weimer Message-ID: <43124c3a-907c-3a55-4162-25cc714835c2@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:28:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg01102.txt.bz2 On 08/21/2017 12:30 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > The following GCC patch has been submitted for review. It > helps detect mismatches between the type of an ifunc or alias > declaration and the type of the resolver or alias. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg01103.html > > To let Glibc take advantage of this type checking and avoid > warnings when using the patched GCC when the change above is > committed, the patch below adjusts the Glibc __ifunc_resolver > macro to declare the ifunc resolver so that its return type > matches that of the target. (I was going to wait to submit it > until after the GCC patch has been accepted but per Joseph's > suggestion I'm posting it here ahead of time.) Do we have to backport both patches to older releases, too, so that they keep building with a newer GCC? Thanks, Florian