https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
See
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Carlos O'Donell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Carlos O'Donell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|carlos at redhat dot com |
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Andreas Schwab schwab at sourceware dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com |
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Andreas Schwab schwab at sourceware dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com |
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Jackie Rosen jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #15 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx 2012-10-12 19:48:59
UTC ---
Ping. Is anybody willing to look at this?
This bug has been open 10 months now and fixing it is as simple as removing the
offending code that's
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-19
09:16:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Both ld and ld.so go extra efforts to make sure that
the same function pointer value is used for protected
function in the
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-01-19 10:00:36
UTC ---
In comment #2 I was forgetting what we do in an executable. In the main
executable (which might be non-PIC), if we take the address of foo and the
address of
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-01-19 10:22:22 UTC ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-01-19 10:50:45
UTC ---
const void *const p = (void *)foo; might be more interesting. Or
const struct blah {
int (*f) ();
int x,y,z,w;
} f = { .f = printf };
--
Configure
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-01-19 11:05:40 UTC ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-01-19 11:57:15
UTC ---
That's why you make the address of foo the plt entry for foo in the executable.
The address is fixed at link time. However, it does mean that address of a
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-01-19 12:04:23 UTC ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-01-19 12:49:02
UTC ---
Well, if I put that constant into a shared library _and_ I put one into
the executable I'm still lost, no?
No, because shared libraries must be -fpic/PIC
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-01-19 13:22:03 UTC ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-18
09:13:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I think it is a gcc bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
That one mixes in the issue of comparing
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-01-18 16:52:10
UTC ---
Both ld and ld.so go extra efforts to make sure that
the same function pointer value is used for protected
function in the entire process. If we drop this
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail
20 matches
Mail list logo
