Home Original page

Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

H.J. Lu hjl.tools@gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 15:44:00 GMT 2016 
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant@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.

-- 
H.J.
More information about the Binutils mailing list