Re: A patch for visibility.

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>]

On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:34:13PM +0200, Martin von Loewis wrote:
> > This does not make any sense.  The visibility is a property of a
> > defined symbol.
> 
> The ABI says
> 
> # Second, if any reference to or definition of a name is a symbol with
> # a non-default visibility attribute, the visibility attribute must be
> # propagated to the resolving symbol in the linked object. If
> # different visibility attributes are specified for distinct
> # references to or definitions of a symbol, the most constraining
> # visibility attribute must be propagated to the resolving symbol in
> # the linked object.
> 
> So the intent is clearly that visibility on references must also be
> supported.

As I understand, it is for building an object from some .o files. I
will ask for a clarification today.

> 
> > > Besides: there are still some systems that use st_other in an other
> > > meaning. It would probably be good if we treat those gracefully - I
> > > tried the best I could.
> > 
> > They are treated correctly.
> 
> Not in HJ's patch, AFAICT: It would clear some bits in st_other, no
> matter whether they indicated visibility or not.
> 

No, only the visibility bits will be cleared.

-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)