On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:13:45 +0100
> > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de>
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:35:25PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> > > I'm assuming clang handles asm names like gcc, such that declaring
> > > void *memcpy(void *__restrict, const void *__restrict, __size_t)
> > > __dso_hidden __asm("_dl_memcpy");
> > >
> > > will make even internally generated calls go to _dl_memcpy instead.
> >
> > No. The backend normally has no idea about assembler names. What problem
> > are you trying to solve, really?
>
> Right. The solution gere is probably to rename _dl_memcpy back to
> memcpy. One of the reasons why _dl_memcpy exists is that we wanted to
> prevent exporting ld.so's memcpy implementation such that nothing else
> would accidentally pick it up. But now that we explicitly control
> which symbols we export from ld.so, that risk doesn't exist anymore.
Correct. x86 is more forgiving here than others as it doesn't tend to
pull in anything from libgcc/compiler-rt/whatever, but the same issue
will exist e.g. for the division helper if you care about armv6 etc.
Joerg
