On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <amo...@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.
Thanks. 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? 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. glibc uses "protected visibility" via its using of local aliases, correct? But it doesn't use anything like that for data symbols? Richard. > -- > Alan Modra > Australia Development Lab, IBM
