On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:11 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:55 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Here is the updated patch with testcases. Tested on Linux/x86. OK >>>> for trunk? >> >>> This patch needs global reviewer approval (I have added Jakub to CC) >>> and Darwin maintainer approval. >> >> So, my concern would be this, does the bug also impact darwin, and does the >> bug fix also fix darwin? > > This bug doesn't impact darwin. > >> If no and the change doesn’t change code-gen for darwin (which I think it >> does not), then the darwin bits are ok. >> >> I did a quick check of the test case on darwin, no protected variables (we >> ignore the protected request). When compiled, the program works (returns 0). > > It is expected. This bug only affects targets which support protected > visibility and use copy relocation. >
Hi Jakub, I'd like to fix this bug for GCC 5. Is that OK for trunk: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00325.html It only impacts Linux/x86. Thanks. -- H.J.
