Alan Modra amodra@gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 05:08:00 GMT 2016

• Previous message (by thread): Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
• Next message (by thread): Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

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 <amodra@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.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

---

• Previous message (by thread): Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
• Next message (by thread): Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Binutils mailing list