To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=66018
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 7 09:15:22 +0000 2007 ------- I still do not fully understand what is going on. I will try to find some time to get a deeper understanding. Meanwhile, maybe it is also worthwhile to revisit issue 41981 (which introduced -fvisibility-inlines-hidden into the OOo build environment). For one, this should not be necessary when all libraries and executables are linked with controlled exports (through either explicit mapfiles or the SAL_DLLPUBLIC/PRIVATE macros and -fvisibility=hidden). For another, I think GCC's -fvisibility-inlines-hidden is broken, in that it renders the compiler nonconforming (e.g., no unique addresses of inline functions)---why did not they implement it in a conservative way, so that only those inline functions and inline function static data are hidden for which it can be proven that uniqueness is not required by the program. Or am I missing something? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
