https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
See Also|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Carlos O'Donell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com
C
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Carlos O'Donell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|carlos at redhat dot com |
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com |
--
You are receiving this m
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com |
--
You are receiving this m
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Jackie Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jackie.rosen at hushmail dot
com
---
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #15 from Rich Felker 2012-10-12 19:48:59
UTC ---
Ping. Is anybody willing to look at this?
This bug has been open 10 months now and fixing it is as simple as removing the
offending code that's enforcing policy to protest a
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #14
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-01-19 13:22:03 UTC ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
>
> --- Comment #12 from Alan Modra 2012-01-19 12:49:02
> UT
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra 2012-01-19 12:49:02
UTC ---
> Well, if I put that constant into a shared library _and_ I put one into
> the executable I'm still lost, no?
No, because shared libraries must be -fpic/PIC and as you note
> Btw,
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-01-19 12:04:23 UTC ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
>
> --- Comment #10 from Alan Modra 2012-01-19 11:57:15
> UT
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra 2012-01-19 11:57:15
UTC ---
That's why you make the address of foo the plt entry for foo in the executable.
The address is fixed at link time. However, it does mean that address of a
default or protected visib
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-01-19 11:05:40 UTC ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
>
> --- Comment #8 from Alan Modra 2012-01-19 10:50:45
> UTC
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra 2012-01-19 10:50:45
UTC ---
const void *const p = (void *)foo; might be more interesting. Or
const struct blah {
int (*f) ();
int x,y,z,w;
} f = { .f = printf };
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.or
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-01-19 10:22:22 UTC ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
>
> --- Comment #6 from Alan Modra 2012-01-19 10:00:36
> UTC
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra 2012-01-19 10:00:36
UTC ---
In comment #2 I was forgetting what we do in an executable. In the main
executable (which might be non-PIC), if we take the address of foo and the
address of foo is written into a rea
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-19
09:16:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Both ld and ld.so go extra efforts to make sure that
> the same function pointer value is used for protected
> function in the entire process. If we d
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-01-18 16:52:10
UTC ---
Both ld and ld.so go extra efforts to make sure that
the same function pointer value is used for protected
function in the entire process. If we drop this requirement,
we can simplify ld
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-18
09:13:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think it is a gcc bug:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
That one mixes in the issue of comparing function addresses of protect
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13600
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
21 matches
Mail list logo
