This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: for 3.4-bi 20021213 (experimental) testsuite on
- From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- To: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- Cc: Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>, zack at codesourcery dot com, gcc-testresults at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:29:21 +0000
- Subject: Re: for 3.4-bi 20021213 (experimental) testsuite on
- References: <200212180027.gBI0RTXu010394@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
On the otherhand, it clear HP doesn't like weak symbols in that they
don't provide compiler and assembler support for them. It's always been
a puzzle to me that libc contains weak symbols, and yet there is no
support in the tools for weak binding or for visibility.
Nathan, I don't think the current code in profile.c is acceptable, but
I'm not an ELF standards expert. As I said before, I don't want to disable
I think elf specifies weak symbols default to zero.
http://www.tachyonsoft.com/elf.pdf says so on page 1-18 2nd bullet. That is
an i86 base document though - I couldn't google a plain elf spec.
Anyhow, it appears I'm abusing SUPPORTS_WEAK anyway, and should only enable
that on stage 2 builds, I guess we (that'd be me) should work around the
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
The voices in my head said this was stupid too
firstname.lastname@example.org : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : email@example.com