2013/3/23 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com>: > On 23/03/2013 00:08, Kai Tietz wrote: >> 2013/3/23 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com>: > >>> Also, can you explain the motivation for this change? I don't see how >>> it's >>> going to work right; from what I remember, we don't have weak definitions in >>> PE-COFF, just weak references. How does the correct definition get chosen >>> when we may have two definitions in a final link? >> >> Well, weak undefs are possible with pe-coff. We ran into that by >> porting cygwin to x64. >> But you are right that pe-coff doesn't support undefines (weak or >> none-weak) within final-link, so for a weak we need always a default >> implementation. This we added here. > > I thought it does (support weak undefines within final link). Weak > references with no definition resolve to zero, no? > > cheers, > DaveK >
No, actual they aren't zero value, they are reported as undefined symbol, which seems to me from perpective of pe-coff weak definition the right thing to do. Cheers, Kai