On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:52 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
Another old bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10908 -- H.J.
