[Bug ld/29376] multiple definition of weak symbols on MinGW toolchain

[amodra at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29376

Alan Modra  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |INVALID

--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra  ---
not a bug

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/29376] multiple definition of weak symbols on MinGW toolchain

[bmeng.cn at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29376

--- Comment #3 from Bin Meng  ---
Please ignore above comments about the MSYS2 mingw native toolchain. There
should be something wrong my test environment.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/29376] multiple definition of weak symbols on MinGW toolchain

[bmeng.cn at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29376

--- Comment #2 from Bin Meng  ---
Using MSYS2 MinGW64 native toolchain x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc (version 12.1.0),
the attached test case can build successfully.

Not sure if this issue is fixed in the MSYS2 toolchain, or is just simply the
new GCC version 12.1.0 fixed the issue?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/29376] multiple definition of weak symbols on MinGW toolchain

[i at maskray dot me]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29376

Fangrui Song  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||i at maskray dot me

--- Comment #1 from Fangrui Song  ---
This is a limitation of the PE/COFF format:
https://maskray.me/blog/2021-04-25-weak-symbol#pe-coff

You can work around the limitation by adding a suitable non-comdat strong
definition.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.