On 09/17/2015 09:00 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 07:48:15PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:31:33, Jeff Law wrote:
You could probably make the function static or change its visibility via
a function attribute (there's a visibility attribute which can take the
values default, hidden protected or internal). Default visibility
essentially means the function can be overridden. I think changing it
to "protected" might work. Note if we do that, we may need some kind of
target selector on the test since not all targets support the various
visibility attributes.
Yes, it works both ways: static works, and __attribute__ ((visibility
("protected"))) works too:
make check-gcc-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS="ubsan.exp=object-size-9.c
--target_board='unix{-fpic,-mcmodel=medium,-fpic\ -mcmodel=medium,-mcmodel=large,-fpic\
-mcmodel=large}'"
has all tests passed, but..
make check-gcc-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS="ubsan.exp=object-size-9.c
--target_board='unix{-fno-inline}'"
still fails in the same way for all workarounds: inline, static, and __attribute__
((visibility ("protected"))).
Maybe "static" would be preferable?
Yeah, I'd go with static if that helps. I'd rather avoid playing games
with visibility.
Static is certainly easier and doesn't rely on targets implementing all
the visibility capabilities. So static is probably the best approach.
jeff
