From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A45C1F8C6 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2021 16:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06DF385F02C for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2021 16:50:46 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C06DF385F02C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1628441446; bh=iGvdQiGPjV7MTxGVpTIT6hU7SPBCXQePXRxpLlZHZCY=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=KfYrQ7+cc67ZvEp5FfZeCwZT755xPrL2oPkKsOh0DwW8TopiOcyoF02v8FG6So6Ln kOSqVvcUbotmsfif5HNL6EDafm+GU7SsZkfsA9oXR5arwE0cbXG7ls39MYd6YRFbUI V17Nj00nBSfjr1GiuXx5mC8fuxjCUuspMDmbNS28= Received: from mail-yb1-xb29.google.com (mail-yb1-xb29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFB4F385F02C for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2021 16:50:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org DFB4F385F02C Received: by mail-yb1-xb29.google.com with SMTP id z128so24994055ybc.10 for ; Sun, 08 Aug 2021 09:50:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iGvdQiGPjV7MTxGVpTIT6hU7SPBCXQePXRxpLlZHZCY=; b=lAAMCm4HhFvH5By2afxIuOn2LzYKWhGilL9vsLgBHumrTsEGJiUMO7hy7Sh02iuD8c I/cUu7OashAGD6hn/re+j2Ph5S+naXHKjBDMdnF/jLB7fwWWH7bJtZx8lpDgoNDbmppc VqorbDZkxM6Lf4NsN3ZrG9DxBlSiFUidJVm+yuYHxUBPFlZxiyCC3SNF6dkDJwzx1FK4 Lppadqp+Gk/1tUpdIKVfpQTaDaf6LFsVJZucXwSLtGRqn0p5W/XiZMYAVL8ty3egioic iUoAzGmvy437d3ixRxeVQjker9/bovE286TRyFbPDf0IKcNXkepFx/9SNgK2i+/EkuRH 0yOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JPEx1kNHNIyrSSbZyvKLVlV2arYnG2REus0EKSa9m1CyvCI2l v5cVndZWqHOvDsYCsf3BeFqz9UIqXKJnDeyBTK9/LAHZAS/q2g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwcIouUbc+sVdwu5YT8ADVaByOCVeD5EPdD0bzhSJlm9kh685MuXn045LPOOVn4QAl1+FpgLjAENdrYwwVfDOY= X-Received: by 2002:a25:2e05:: with SMTP id u5mr25607401ybu.240.1628441424306; Sun, 08 Aug 2021 09:50:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210726035802.275992-1-maskray@google.com> <59f951bb-3772-535b-e605-35958dbd27f4@gotplt.org> In-Reply-To: <59f951bb-3772-535b-e605-35958dbd27f4@gotplt.org> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 09:50:13 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Allow LLD 13.0.0 and improve compatibility with gold and clang To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: =?utf-8?q?F=C4=81ng-ru=C3=AC_S=C3=B2ng_via_Libc-alpha?= Reply-To: =?UTF-8?B?RsSBbmctcnXDrCBTw7JuZw==?= Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 9:23 PM Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On 8/2/21 9:32 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > The entire point of link time deprecation is to not emit a @@ symbol. If > > lld emits __free_hook@@GLIBC_2.2.5 in this case then this needs to be > > resolved. How does one do symbol deprecation in lld? > > Sorry I just realized that you may have implied that having a .globl in > the object file ought to be sufficient to indicate that the symbol needs > to be exported. The glibc linker script however overrides this with > {local: *} and if the linker doesn't honour that then ISTM that this > ought to be a bug in the linker. ld.bfd always gives preference to the > linker script over symbol definitions in source and it seems like a > simpler and more consistent rule. > > Siddhesh Your conjecture was correct:) LLD<13.0.0 did not implement: a "local:" pattern can localize a non-default version symbol. I apologize for the previous confusion I may caused. (I was not aware that this is possible, but this behavior does make sense to me. I implemented it and cherry picked https://reviews.llvm.org/D107234 to 13.0.0)