http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #40 from Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net ---
$ grep ZTv0 *
gnu.ver:_ZTv0_n12_NS*;
gnu.ver:_ZTv0_n24_NS*;
gnu-versioned-namespace.ver:_ZTv0_n24_NS*;
versioned namespace doesn't provide *n12* for i686.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #41 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Sep 10 16:19:45 2013
New Revision: 202474
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202474root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk.
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #36 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-12
13:05:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
I am still bit confused how keyed construction vtables are supposed to work.
If I understand it right, and there is no C++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #37 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-03-12 13:32:15
UTC ---
So perhaps the construction vtables should be always comdat hidden?
Hmm? My earlier patch made them hidden, and they were already comdat. Do you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #38 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-12
14:03:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
I assumed it to be public... So I suppose there is no way to write
constructor
of fstream that would not be linked into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #31 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-04 10:16:18
UTC ---
The patch seems to have broken many testcases on platforms like Solaris 9 with
Sun as that lack visibility support:
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/covariant2.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-04
10:22:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
The patch seems to have broken many testcases on platforms like Solaris 9 with
Sun as that lack visibility support:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-04
10:44:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 29347
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29347
gcc48-pr54314.patch
Ah, I see, solaris and mingw/cygwin have their
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-04
17:20:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 4 17:19:56 2013
New Revision: 195723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195723
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #29 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-29
17:24:58 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 29 17:24:51 2013
New Revision: 195550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195550
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28
11:27:51 UTC ---
I meant the ABI checkers only. Anyway, on the other side given comments like:
This mangling isn't part of the ABI specification; in the ABI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #26 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-01-28 14:56:12
UTC ---
perhaps making them hidden whenever possible is really desirable.
Yes, this seems fine to me. Just to be sure I understand the problem fully.
I believe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #27 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28
15:42:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
1) Just add the check. We will then miss all devirtualization oppurtunities
through the construction vtable.
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-01-28 19:05:40
UTC ---
1) Just add the check. We will then miss all devirtualization oppurtunities
through the construction vtable.
The front end does devirtualization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-26
10:38:23 UTC ---
BTW, I agree with Jason that we shouldn't optimize these vtable reads. When
this hit libstdc++, it could hit very well any other C++ shared library
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-01-26 18:32:15
UTC ---
I must say I'm surprised by the gimple-fold.c test, I'd really expect
additional DECL_VISIBILITY (decl) != VISIBILITY_DEFAULT .
Another alternative to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #24 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-27
01:44:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
I must say I'm surprised by the gimple-fold.c test, I'd really expect
additional DECL_VISIBILITY (decl) !=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28065|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-09-26
09:00:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 28279
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28279
Draft, sanity checked x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-09-26
09:01:58 UTC ---
Kai, I attached a complete draft which passes a sanity check on Linux. Please
let me know if it works for you and we can resolve this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #14 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-26 20:09:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Hey P, I think you mean:
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
b/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/g
index
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-09-26
21:06:28 UTC ---
Ah, Ok. Benjamin, please handle this, because I don't want to make other
mistakes here. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #16 from Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-27
00:05:07 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Sep 27 00:05:03 2012
New Revision: 191788
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191788
Log:
2012-09-26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #10 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2012-09-25 08:11:23 UTC ---
I can confirm adding the exports gets rid of the undefined references.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-09-05
10:25:16 UTC ---
I think we should identify when this changed and why. Then, we can certainly
add the export (please send a regular patch to the library mailing list)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
35 matches
Mail list logo
