ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes: > Is this 6 year old post still valid?
Hmm, here's a related gcc bug with is marked as fixed, https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51880, also marked as a dup of the old bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520 Ian refers to. > I guess it would also be useful with some function __attribute__ > expressing that "I don't give a damn whether or not pointer comparison > for address(es) to this function work according to the C standard". Anyone else who thinks that would be a good idea? I'm considering filing a bug report/feature request to gcc. Anyway, as to using protected, it seems it's a bit too hairy for its own good. But why doesn't symbol aliases with hidden visibility have the same issues? Say we have an internal symbol mpn_foo_internal with visibility "hidden", and an alias mpn_foo with visibility "default". Then I think the desirable behaviour is that pointers to mpn_foo and mpn_foo_internal are equal if and only if the executable doesn't provide a different implementation of mpn_foo. But I have no idea how that really works. And since symbol aliases aren't C standard, one could argue that the standard's rules for pointer equality don't apply. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel