[Bug target/58278] visibility bug from #26905 still happens with the sparc64 backend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58278 --- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann martin at netbsd dot org --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3) So what? What happens if conftest.cc doesn't fiddle with visibility at all? Sorry, I am not quite sure I understand what you are up to. Same thing happens, so this is not bug 26905 but a more generic issue and we could simplify the test case? Or are you trying to argue whether we should see a PLT call at all? Martin
[Bug target/58278] visibility bug from #26905 still happens with the sparc64 backend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58278 Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Same thing happens, so this is not bug 26905 but a more generic issue and we could simplify the test case? Or are you trying to argue whether we should see a PLT call at all? The latter, @PLT is a x86 specific quirk.
[Bug target/58278] visibility bug from #26905 still happens with the sparc64 backend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58278 --- Comment #6 from Martin Husemann martin at netbsd dot org --- Ooops, my lack of x86 ABI knowledge strikes again. Indeed, visibility is properly expressed in the prologue, all is fine.
[Bug target/58278] visibility bug from #26905 still happens with the sparc64 backend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58278 --- Comment #2 from Martin Husemann martin at netbsd dot org --- Compare with this on amd64: c++ -o plain.s -S conftest.cc c++ -o shared.s -fPIC -shared -S conftest.cc diff -u plain.s shared.s --- plain.s 2013-08-30 21:46:18.0 +0200 +++ shared.s2013-08-30 21:46:25.0 +0200 @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ movq%rsp, %rbp .cfi_offset 6, -16 .cfi_def_cfa_register 6 - call_ZN10TestStruct4InitEv + call_ZN10TestStruct4InitEv@PLT popq%rbp .cfi_def_cfa 7, 8 ret while on sparc (and sparc64) there is no difference. See bug 26905 for details.
[Bug target/58278] visibility bug from #26905 still happens with the sparc64 backend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58278 Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2013-08-30 CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- What do you mean exactly? What's the difference with the default visibility?
[Bug target/58278] visibility bug from #26905 still happens with the sparc64 backend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58278 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Compare with this on amd64: c++ -o plain.s -S conftest.cc c++ -o shared.s -fPIC -shared -S conftest.cc diff -u plain.s shared.s --- plain.s 2013-08-30 21:46:18.0 +0200 +++ shared.s2013-08-30 21:46:25.0 +0200 @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ movq%rsp, %rbp .cfi_offset 6, -16 .cfi_def_cfa_register 6 - call_ZN10TestStruct4InitEv + call_ZN10TestStruct4InitEv@PLT popq%rbp .cfi_def_cfa 7, 8 ret while on sparc (and sparc64) there is no difference. So what? What happens if conftest.cc doesn't fiddle with visibility at all?
