On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Cary Coutant <ccout...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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? >> >> Like how? You mean in GCC regarding protected as default visibility? No, >> that's just throwing out the baby with the water. We should make >> protected do what it was intended to do and accept that not all invariants >> that are true for default visible symbols are also true for protected >> symbols, possibly by ... >> >>> 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. >> >> ... this. > > Right. Protected visibility worked fine without copy relocations for > 15 years until HJ's patch. I don't know of anyone with a legitimate > complaint about that until HJ filed a bug based on his artificial test > case.
Cary, please stop spreading the incorrect information. There is at lease one GCC bug against protected symbol: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55012 which was reported by other people. -- H.J.
