This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem
- To: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at
- Subject: Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 11:09:26 -0700
- CC: jason at redhat dot com, rittle at rsch dot comm dot mot dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009031327180.23691-100000@deneb.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 13:28:42 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
> cc: rittle@rsch.comm.mot.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
> binutils@sources.redhat.com
>
> On 2 Sep 2000, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> for which a simple `g++ x.cc` generates the following warnings:
> > Well, of course it does. You're compiling it with different flags than
> > were used to build libstdc++, so the generated code is different. That's
> > why this feature is pretty useless for code.
>
> Yeah, but how can we diagnose the problem I raised in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-07/msg00769.html
> ?
>
> That's the main question, but the answer surely won't be easy! :-(
One way might be to modify the compiler so that the name of the
linkonce section is based on the token stream of the compiled
procedure. That way, if two procedures have the same name but
different token streams, the linkonce sections will be different, and
you'll get a duplicate definition error.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>