Re: Getting 3.3 out the door

[Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>]

Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu> writes:

> Can I lobby a little for c++/9393? I only rediscovered this these days, so 
> I doubt anyone has looked at it with an angle on 3.3 (because it didn't 
> have priority "high" until very recently). It's
> - a problem that one cannot work around
> - generates code that cannot be linked
> - violates the C++ standard
> - a regression against 2.95
> - breaks my application and prevents Brad from running it on his system :-)
> 
> (In short: members of anonymous namespaces only get mangled names that
> depend on the file name, nothing else. If you compile the same file twice
> with different flags, then link them together, you'll get linker errors 
> about duplicate symbols for all members of anonymous namespaces in this 
> file.)

This appears to be an intentional change, but with no justification or
discussion (other than "this fixes my bootstrap"), see

<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-09/msg00496.html>

It's clearly wrong because of exactly this case.  If people want
reproducible builds, we should have a flag which suppresses the
randomness.  I'll work on a quick patch.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>