H. J. Lu hjl@lucon.org
Tue Feb 1 15:23:00 GMT 2005

• Previous message (by thread): PATCH: Properly handle protected function for ia32 and x86_64
• Next message (by thread): Recent ia64 assembler change is incompatible with gcc 3.4
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:14:21PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:50:18PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 03:21:10PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > I'm not happy with the i386 one, because conceptually there isn't any
> > > reason why the GOT of a shared library can't contain an entry for a
> > > protected symbol.  I believe such a shared lib will work properly, so it
> > > isn't appropriate to issue an error.  The problem occurs when an
> > > executable tries to reference such a symbol, and copy relocs are
> > > involved.
> > 
> > Please check it again. It is R_386_GOTOFF against protected FUNCTION
> > symbol. It has nothing to do with copy relocation. It is the function
> > pointer problem with protected function.
> 
> OK, I misunderstood the problem.  Do you have a testcase?
> 

There is a testcase in

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520



H.J.

---

• Previous message (by thread): PATCH: Properly handle protected function for ia32 and x86_64
• Next message (by thread): Recent ia64 assembler change is incompatible with gcc 3.4
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Binutils mailing list