On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/18/2016 11:55 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: >>>> >>>> That is why protected visibility is such a mess. >>> >>> >>> Not mess, but it comes with certain limitations. And that's okay. It's >>> intended as an optimization, and it should do that optimization if >>> requested, and error out if it can't be done for whatever reason. >> >> >> I completely agree. > > ISTM this ought to be the guiding principle here, with the additional caveat > that if one of the limitations is tickled that we issue a good diagnostic. > > The current situation (gcc-5, gcc-6-rc) essentially de-optimizes protected > systems in an attempt to work around the various limitations of protected > symbols. Reverting that change is, IMHO, what needs to happen. My worry is > that we're so damn late in the gcc-6 cycle that it may need to be deferred > to 6.2 or beyond.
Please keep in mind that many limitations can only be detected at link-time or run-time, which are yet to be implemented, not at compile-time. -- H.J.
