https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25295
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #10) > Thanks for CCing me. I'm interested on this topic. > > I expressed my feelings on > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2019-November/108784.html > and https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23840 > > My idea is that we should treat `.symver foo, bar@V1` as "renaming foo to > bar@V1" ( > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL369233; This should be the same as Comment #3), > just like what we do with the 3-@ variant `.symver foo, bar@@@V1` > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2019-November/108784.html(In reply > to H.J. Lu from comment #8) > > (In reply to hubicka from comment #5) > > > > Where do you see "export foo and foo@VERS_1"? All I see is that the > > > > alias gets > > > > the same attributes as the original symbol, thus it will be external > > > > iff the > > > > original symbol is. > > > Yes, but I want to implement only foo@VERS_1 in the unit, not foo, so I > > > do not want to see foo in the symbol table, just foo@VERS_1 and this > > > does not seem to be possible with current .symver > > > (there is @@@ vairant that does that for default defs) > > > > > > Honza > > > > How abou > > > > .symver foo, foo@VERS_1, hidden > > > > It will mark foo as hidden. > > I would hope we just rename the symbol (i.e. drop foo). Rename won't work with: .symver foo, bar@V1 .symver foo, baz@V2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
