This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Minimal GCC/Linux shared lib + EH bug example
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Matthew Austern <austern at apple dot com>, drepper at redhat dot com,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,"Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk at cci dot lbl dot gov>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,c++std-ext at research dot att dot com
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 19:43:30 -0700
- Subject: Re: Minimal GCC/Linux shared lib + EH bug example
- References: <9399EFBA-6833-11D6-B573-00039390D9E0@apple.com> <200205151902.MAA11847@atrus.synopsys.com>
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:02:46PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> Matt Austern writes:
> > There are at least two interesting questions we might ask:
> > (1) what should a future version of the C++ standard say
> > about dynamic libraries?
> > (2) considering what the standard says right now, and
> > recognizing that we're talking about behavior outside
> > the scope of the standard, what behavior for gcc would
> > best serve users on a linux/ELF platform?
> There's a hybrid question as well, since both C++ and ELF have standards.
> C++ has the one-definition rule, which is contradicted by the way weak
> symbols work in ELF, so we have a tension between two standards.
> what should a future version of the ELF standard say
> about C++ dynamic libraries?
> as it seems that any compiler targeting an OS that supports ELF
> should provide the same semantics.
Please check out the current gABI for weak symbols. If gcc can provide
the detailed description how weak symbols should work for g++ and how
different it is from the gABI, I can look into it for binutils and