On 04/19/2016 02:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:59:50AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
To summarize: there is currently no testcase for a wrong-code issue
because there is no wrong-code issue.
I've added a testcase at
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19965#c3
that shows the address problem (&x != x) with older gcc *or* older
glibc, and shows the program behaviour problem with current
binutils+gcc+glibc.
Thanks.
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?
No, we revert to the gcc-4.9 behavior WRT protected visibility and
ensure that we're getting a proper diagnostic from the linker.
That direction is consistent with the intent of protected visibility,
fixes the problem with preemption of protected symbols and gives us a
diagnostic for the case that can't be reasonably handled.
Jeff
