On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Rafael Espíndola < [email protected]> wrote:
> > So, what's going on here? Any ideas? Hopefully Nick can add a test case > when > > the reduction finishes. > > In hindsight the change to use a weak_odr alias to a linkonce_odr > destructor was a bad hack around not having comdats. GCC always puts > D1 and D2 in a comdat when they alias, but having direct comdat > support means it can use a new name for the comdat, which avoid > problems when mixing old and new object files. Alternatively, rather than replacing one hack with another hack that may or may not break ABI, why not actually implement comdat support? I feel like this patch doesn't solve any pressing need, and is causing gratuitous fallout. It may be that the old pattern was a hack, but it was at least a hack that had been well tested in deployment and has caused us no problems so far.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
