On 2012-02-14, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: Hi Application Manager :)
(My response here includes some questions from my upstream who I showed this mail) > It was always my understanding that protected wasn't useful, > because it's even more expensive. Can you come with a bit pointers or numbers about 'expensive' ? > As far as I understand things, this is supposed to work, and might > be a bug in the toolchain or dynamic linker. Which might also > mean that they're trying to make use of a bug in the toolchain. It is not a bug in the toolchain. It is how the processor specific ABI is. A crash is expected to happen because the psABI requires it. The psABI is broken because it permits a symbol visibility type (protected) that executables cannot use. But it is how the ABI is. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjjlqdo.p7v.nos...@sshway.ssh.pusling.com
