On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 14/02/11 18:20, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Is there a reason you didn't add these functions to the shared libgcc
> > (adjust t-bpabi and t-symbian accordingly, add them to libgcc-bpabi.ver at
> > version GCC_4.6.0)? The GCC-specific names were deliberately made
> > static-only in the expectation that they would be obsoleted by standard
> > AEABI names and temporary names shouldn't be a permanent part of the
> > shared libgcc interface; now we have the permanent names, I'd have thought
> > they should go in shared libgcc as well as static libgcc (while the
> > GCC-specific names would continue to be exported from static libgcc only,
> > with the symbol versioning ensuring they don't get exported from shared
> > libgcc).
> >
>
> No, there was no reason - I just didn't realise it needed doing.
>
> Is this patch better?
You need to add
%inherit GCC_4.7.0 GCC_4.6.0
GCC_4.7.0 {
}
to libgcc-std.ver so that the symbol versions are properly related to each
other (empty versions there that only have contents for some targets are
fine; GCC_4.1.0 is another other example of such a symbol version).
Otherwise the symbol version handling seems right to me, although I can't
approve the patch.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
