This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA/RFC: Add support for exporting vtables based on dllexport/dllimportattributes
- From: Brian Ryner <bryner at brianryner dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Niall Douglas <s_fsfeurope2 at nedprod dot com>, mark at codesourcery dot com,jason at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Andy dot Sizer at symbian dot com
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:27:20 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFA/RFC: Add support for exporting vtables based on dllexport/dllimportattributes
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405170817550.29808@wotan.suse.de> <40A91198.17448.BC753E3@localhost> <40AB6B35.3080309@redhat.com>
I'm still a bit uneasy about the PR15000 patch allowing symbols in
different translation units to have different ideas about whether the
symbol is hidden. I haven't been able to demonstrate any real problems
from this though, so maybe it's ok. Probably best to get it in so
people can test it.
Nick, can you send me the copyright form as well?
Thanks.
Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Niall,
Thanks for that - I'm new to this - I had thought it not substantial
enough to need one but there's a real lack of clarity in the
documentation here. I'll fill it in and send it.
Well deciding when a patch is simple enough to avoid a copyright
assignment is a bit of a trey area. (In my opinion anyway. I know that
there is a guideline for this, but I do not always agree with it). The
safest thing is to have a copyright assignment on file - that removes
all doubt and makes it easier for adjudicating future patches as well.
Besides as far as I could tell the lack of a copyright assignment was
the only thing holding up the acceptance of this patch.
Won't Brian also have to fill one in?
Definitely - please could you ask him to do so ?
Cheers
Nick