This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Compiling glibc-2.3.2 (-2.3.3?) snapshot 20031115 with gcc-3.4 snapshot 20031119
- From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Cc: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, Robert Moss <robert dot moss at jesus dot ox dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:35:51 -0800
- Subject: Re: Compiling glibc-2.3.2 (-2.3.3?) snapshot 20031115 with gcc-3.4 snapshot 20031119
- References: <3FC21EDC.5010702@jesus.ox.ac.uk> <3FC2398F.3040401@kegel.com> <3FC2A5D0.6070906@jesus.ox.ac.uk> <3FC2F838.4000306@kegel.com> <3FC32EEC.1000802@jesus.ox.ac.uk> <3FC337FF.9040402@jesus.ox.ac.uk> <3FC3458E.4030504@jesus.ox.ac.uk> <3FC38F41.7090908@kegel.com> <3FC4E42A.2040001@jesus.ox.ac.uk> <u84qwjydys.fsf@gromit.moeb> <3FCC4017.8040405@jesus.ox.ac.uk> <ho1xrnpcif.fsf@reger.suse.de>
On Dec 2, 2003, at 5:36 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Robert Moss <robert.moss@jesus.ox.ac.uk> writes:
Andreas, can you confirm that this is in fact the problem, and that
it's nothing to do with the (possibly slightly ridiculous) situation
in glibc in which the source uses asm behind gcc's back in relation to
weak functions?
Rob
Let's wait for a GCC patch - but looking at the assembly it really
seems to be a issue with broken hidden support.\
As you might have noticed from following the discussion on the
gcc list, the main reason I haven't fixed this yet is that we haven't
yet reached an agreement about what the semantics of the
visibility attribute should be when you've got multiple declarations
of the same symbol.
What assumptions does the glibc source make about this, and how
tightly wedded are you to those assumptions?
--Matt