This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Duplicate data objects in shared libraries
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v dot loewis dot de>,David Abrahams <david dot abrahams at rcn dot com>,"H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>,"drepper at redhat dot com" <drepper at redhat dot com>,"Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk at cci dot lbl dot gov>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:06:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: Duplicate data objects in shared libraries
- References: <email@example.com>
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> A good point, though we could handle this by decorating the RTTI name for
>> S with the unnamed namespace qualifier. I suppose this sort of thing is
>> what leads people to want to remove internal linkage entirely.
> We're clearly in the land of corner cases, but changing the RTTI name for
> S would be an incompatible ABI change.
I don't think it would be incompatible; S is file-local, so its
compatibility with things from other files is either uninteresting or
> I guess my top-level opinion is that this is a good discussion, but that
> we should keep it as a discussion -- rather than an implementation -- for
> some time to come. We should bring in other vendors too; if we do one
> thing, and HP and IBM and Sun and EDG and so forth and so on do another,
> that won't be good for people.
Certainly any changes to ld.so semantics should go through the ELF gABI
committee. But I don't think that's as difficult as you make it sound. :)
> I guess I think we have bigger fish to fry than making RTLD_LOCAL work
> with C++... :-)
I think that being able to write plugins in C++ is important, and a
reasonably common desire. I know I talked to a customer several years ago
about writing Oracle plugins in C++, and it comes up regularly. This isn't
like -Bsymbolic, where we can just say "don't do that". If you say that in
this case, you're saying "don't use C++". I'd prefer not to discourage
people from using C++.