[PATCH 2/3] gas/ELF: warn upon non-default visibility of local symbols

[Jan Beulich]

On 10.04.2026 15:35, Richard Earnshaw (foss) wrote:
> On 10/04/2026 14:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The spec explicitly precludes STB_LOCAL together with STV_PROTECTED (and,
>> implicity, STV_HIDDEN or STV_INTERNAL), so we better wouldn't entirely
>> silently write out symbols violating this.
>>
>> LoongArch's tc_symbol_new_hook() simply needs dropping. If FAKE_LABEL_NAME
>> symbols can end up global, marking them hidden would need doing elsewhere.
>> There not being a need to make any testsuite adjustments suggests though
>> that this won't normally (ever?) happen.
>>
>> A couple of testcases then also need adjustment.
>> ---
>> It would be nice to re-use an existing loop, yet the one in
>> elf_frob_file_before_adjust() comes too early, as does elf_frob_symbol().
>>
>> An alternative may be to imply .global from .hidden etc also for defined
>> symbols (as looks to have been implied by some of the testcases being
>> adjusted). This would then require to reject .local when a visibility was
>> already set.

As you can see from this, ...

>> I wonder what purpose STV_* serve with e.g. STT_SECTION. Yet I also wonder
>> what purpose STB_* other than STB_LOCAL serve with STT_SECTION (seeing how
>> bfd/elf.c:swap_out_syms() explicitly uses STB_GLOBAL).
>>
>> The TI C6x testcase adjustments suggest that PLT relocations are
>> needlessly emitted by gas for non-default visibility globals.
> 
> 
> Do we know that this won't cause issues for real code out in the wild?  Might it not be better to just treat .hidden as making the symbol global, but hidden?

... I'm wondering the same. I meant to be conservative (as to exposing new
globals) for v1. If collectively we think changing the behavior that way
makes sense, I'll be happy to try that out for v2.

Jan