https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jan 22 14:53:41 2019
New Revision: 268152
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268152=gcc=rev
Log:
i386: Load external function address via GOT slot
With noplt attribute, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
For indirect calls the attributes on the function type pointed to a relevant.
Unioning attributes from the actually called function (if the compiler can
figure that out) can be appropriate depending on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> My question is about the change you are proposing. How do you expect g() to
> be called if the test case from comment #0 is modified for example as
> follows:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
My question is about the change you are proposing. How do you expect g() to be
called if the test case from comment #0 is modified for example as follows:
void f_plt(void);
void f_noplt(void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> I'm wondering if noplt is meant to be a property of the function pointer or
> that of its type?
>
> Either way, what should happen in cases when a noplt pointer is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
