This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad

To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>
Subject: Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:50:03 -0800
Cc: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <20010206203822.A10129@valinux.com> <20010206212624.A23675@redhat.com> <m3g0hrrpyf.fsf@otr.mynet.cygnus.com> <20010206234233.A23835@redhat.com> <m3vgqmrki6.fsf@otr.mynet.cygnus.com>

On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:59:45PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> The way explained is how these visibilities are defined.  Whether you
> like it or not.

I didn't see anything in that proposal that stated that STV_PROTECTED
must be implemented solely in ld.so.  Please show me that wording and
I'll yield.  Not before.  There is no reason ld cannot take advantage
of the *known* binding of an STV_PROTECTED symbol.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: Geoff Keating

References:
- Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: Ulrich Drepper
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: Ulrich Drepper

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]