[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2006-06-20 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-20 18:21 --- Not a bug; see my earlier comment. -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2006-06-13 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 23:28 --- Either 20218 is a bug or this is. It seems to me that 20218 is the bug. If you declare a function to be hidden, you are asserting that it will be defined in the current DSO. From the GCC documentation: Two

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2005-09-05 Thread pluto at agmk dot net
-- What|Removed |Added CC||pluto at agmk dot net http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22592

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2005-09-03 Thread jh at suse dot cz
--- Additional Comments From jh at suse dot cz 2005-09-03 10:51 --- Subject: Re: -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently --- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-03 01:03 --- Frankly, I think -fvisibility-inlines-hidden is a bad idea.

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2005-09-02 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-03 01:03 --- Frankly, I think -fvisibility-inlines-hidden is a bad idea. I don't feel that way about -fvisibility, but giving inline functions special linkage in this way is a very fragile concept, and awards

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2005-08-16 Thread trapni at gentoo dot org
-- What|Removed |Added CC||trapni at gentoo dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22592

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2005-07-27 Thread matz at suse dot de
--- Additional Comments From matz at suse dot de 2005-07-27 13:46 --- Because these symbols indeed are not defined anywhere. On linux this happens to work, but on darwin you need to link against something which provides them. So you would need to create a library which

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2005-07-26 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26 20:51 --- I still don't think this is a bug as if I compile the library on ppc-darwin, we get the following link error even without -fvisibility=hidden/-fvisibility-inlines-hidden: ld: Undefined symbols:

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2005-07-22 Thread matz at suse dot de
--- Additional Comments From matz at suse dot de 2005-07-22 12:46 --- I don't understand. The code itself is perfectly valid C++, I don't think you mean that it's invalid, right? Yes, operator== is also hidden, but there is no definition for it in this unit, hence GCC generates the

[Bug c++/22592] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden broken differently

2005-07-21 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21 16:39 --- No I think this code is in fact invalid and should error out like this. Note you also declared operator== as being hidden too. So if you call that, it would break too. -- What|Removed