http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-19 09:16:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > Both ld and ld.so go extra efforts to make sure that > the same function pointer value is used for protected > function in the entire process. If we drop this requirement, > we can simplify ld and ld.so quite a bit. Well, if we make sure ld.so resolves the GOT entry to the function address instead of the PLT then that will work - in the module the protected symbol binds locally we get it resolved to the function address directly anyway (see GCC assembly from the testcase). Sounds easier allover the place, no? -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
