https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
Paul Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul_robinson at playstation
dot s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
I really doubt there is a good solution for this because of what c++ calls
vague linkage. Clang's solution is broken too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
Bobby Reynolds changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boreynol at microsoft dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
David L. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||equinox-gccbugs at diac24 dot
net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
Benedek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erenon2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
--- Comment #4 from roland at redhat dot com 2010-08-11 23:52 ---
The compiler is being internally inconsistent here. It somtimes decides that
__attribute__((section (name))) means a name section in a COMDAT group, and
sometimes decides that it means just a plain name section. If it's
--- Comment #3 from mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-17 11:28 ---
See comment #2.
--
mark at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 07:48 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Actually, they have to have two different section types.
c::m()::TWO has to be in the comdat section for C::m().
While c()::ONE does not and can be in a normal section.
INVALID? How is
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 04:50 ---
Actually, they have to have two different section types.
c::m()::TWO has to be in the comdat section for C::m().
While c()::ONE does not and can be in a normal section.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 matches
Mail list logo
