On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 07:48:15PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:31:33, Jeff Law wrote:
> > You could probably make the function static or change its visibility via
> > a function attribute (there's a visibility attribute which can take the
> > values default, hidden protected or internal). Default visibility
> > essentially means the function can be overridden. I think changing it
> > to "protected" might work. Note if we do that, we may need some kind of
> > target selector on the test since not all targets support the various
> > visibility attributes.
> >
>
> Yes, it works both ways: static works, and __attribute__ ((visibility
> ("protected"))) works too:
>
> make check-gcc-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS="ubsan.exp=object-size-9.c
> --target_board='unix{-fpic,-mcmodel=medium,-fpic\
> -mcmodel=medium,-mcmodel=large,-fpic\ -mcmodel=large}'"
>
> has all tests passed, but..
>
> make check-gcc-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS="ubsan.exp=object-size-9.c
> --target_board='unix{-fno-inline}'"
>
> still fails in the same way for all workarounds: inline, static, and
> __attribute__ ((visibility ("protected"))).
>
> Maybe "static" would be preferable?
Yeah, I'd go with static if that helps. I'd rather avoid playing games
with visibility.
Marek
