On 19/04/16 09:20, Richard Biener wrote: > 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? >
the test cases pass for me on musl libc, it's just a glibc dynamic linker bug that it does not handle extern protected visibility correctly. > 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 >
