--- Comment #5 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-04 17:18 ---
Using GCC attribute extension to place a symbol into a section with special
linking semantics cannot work reliably.
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-04 15:29 ---
Note Someone reported this back in May to glibc and nobody in glibc looked at
it and it was automatically closed as a dup of glibc bug 333.
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2672
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-04 15:27
---
>From subsequent discussion by email, it sounds like we think that this is a
case where GLIBC has been making overly aggressive assumptions about GCC
semantics, and that, therefore, GLIBC should be changed. Given
--- Comment #2 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-04 13:58 ---
Glibc explicitly is placing the symbols in the linkonce section:
const unsigned long __strtol_ul_max_tab[] __attribute__ ((visibility
("hidden"))) __attribute__((section(".gnu.linkonce.r." "__strtol_ul_max_tab")))
--- Comment #1 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-04 13:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=12017)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12017&action=view)
pre-processed source file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28598
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28598
