This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: Properly handle protected function for ia32 and x86_64
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>,Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 07:23:40 -0800
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Properly handle protected function for ia32 and x86_64
- References: <20050120031709.GA7990@lucon.org> <20050120042234.GB3810@bubble.modra.org> <20050120063839.GA9529@lucon.org> <jewtu8tne4.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20050120173353.GA16486@lucon.org> <20050124232617.GA18791@lucon.org> <hod5vnqkre.fsf@reger.suse.de> <20050201045110.GO11595@bubble.modra.org> <20050201055018.GA5076@lucon.org> <20050201074421.GR11595@bubble.modra.org>
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.