On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:44 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Cary Coutant <ccout...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> So with all this it sounds that current protected visibility is just >>>> broken and we should forgo with it, making it equal to default >>>> visibility? >>> >>> Like how? You mean in GCC regarding protected as default visibility? No, >>> that's just throwing out the baby with the water. We should make >>> protected do what it was intended to do and accept that not all invariants >>> that are true for default visible symbols are also true for protected >>> symbols, possibly by ... >>> >>>> At least I couldn't decipher a solution that solves all of the issues >>>> with protected visibility apart from trying to error at link-time (or >>>> runtime?) for the cases that are tricky (impossible?) to solve. >>> >>> ... this. >> >> Right. Protected visibility worked fine without copy relocations for >> 15 years until HJ's patch. I don't know of anyone with a legitimate >> complaint about that until HJ filed a bug based on his artificial test >> case. > > Cary, please stop spreading the incorrect information. There is > at lease one GCC bug against protected symbol: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55012 > > which was reported by other people.
I opened this bug in 2005: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520 Richard opened: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51880 in 2012. -- H.J.
