This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.0.1 PATCH: Support #pragma weak on Tru64 UNIX
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: 3.0.1 PATCH: Support #pragma weak on Tru64 UNIX
- From: "Richard B. Kreckel" <kreckel at ginac dot de>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:23:01 +0100 (CET)
- cc: Rainer Orth <ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Reply-To: Richard dot Kreckel at ginac dot de
Hello,
This patch:
> Mon Jul 16 19:57:19 2001 Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
>
> * config/alpha/osf.h (ASM_OUTPUT_WEAK_ALIAS, ASM_WEAKEN_LABEL,
> HANDLE_SYSV_PRAGMA): Define.
> * mips-tfile.c (add_ext_symbol): Pass complete symbol ptr, inline
> previous args.
> (copy_object): Caller changed.
>
> testsuite:
> * g++.old-deja/g++.pt/static3.C: Removed alpha*-*-osf* XFAIL.
> g++.old-deja/g++.pt/static6.C: Likewise.
> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_weak_available): alpha*-*-osf*
> supports weak symbols.
[...]
seems to break the CLN library on `alphaev5-dec-osf5.1'. The patch went
into GCC 3.0.1 and is still there in GCC 3.0.2. I have reverted it from
an otherwise vanilla GCC 3.0.1, bootstrapped that and everything works
fine again.
Here are symptoms:
With GCC 3.0.1 (vanilla) I sometimes warnings like this one:
as1: Warning: /tmp/ccL7IbTO.s, line 6: macro instruction used $at
whereas with the patch reverted I don't see any of these. Dunno what that
means: the two .s files start differing at around line 130.
When creating the static library with the vanilla compiler I find that it
is 8% larger than with the patch reverted and I also get tons of warnings
of this kind:
ar: Warning: ignoring second definition of _ZNSo3putEc defined in archive
ar: Warning: ignoring second definition of _ZNSo6sentryC1ERSo defined in archive
When linking any executable against the library I get zillions of warnings
"weak symbol multiply defined", which may just be a problem of the linker.
The executable still builds, but it segfaults immediately after startup.
Could somebody with better knowledge of this stuff please review the patch
and comment on what may be going on there?
Regards
-richy.
--
Richard B. Kreckel
<Richard.Kreckel@Uni-Mainz.DE>
<http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~kreckel/>