This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/38547] duplicate symbols with g++ on AIX
- From: "bruprz1 at lhsystems dot pl" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 21 Jan 2009 14:39:29 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/38547] duplicate symbols with g++ on AIX
- References: <bug-38547-15635@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #18 from bruprz1 at lhsystems dot pl 2009-01-21 14:39 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> symbols. The assembly files generated by GCC for AIX always have included
> multiple symbol definitions for certain global variable and function
If I understand correctly, that statement means that there have always been
duplicate symbols under AIX. This may be true for 5.3, but:
We maintain an application in C/C++ (over 1.5 million ELOC, with shared
libraries) and since we had upgraded to AIX 5.2 and GCC4.1.1 we didn't have
even one duplicate symbol there. Before that we indeed had duplicate symbols in
C++ code (since weak symbols were not supported). Please have a look at the
following:
host52:/tmp$ oslevel -r
5200-00
host52:/tmp$ /usr/local/gcc/3.4.3/bin/g++ a.cc
host52:/tmp$ /usr/local/gcc/4.1.1/bin/g++ a.cc
host53:/tmp$ oslevel -r
5300-02
host53:/tmp$ /usr/local/gcc/4.0.2/bin/g++ a.cc
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__divdi3
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__moddi3
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__udivdi3
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__umoddi3
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__udivmoddi4
ld: 0711-345 Use the -bloadmap or -bnoquiet option to obtain more information.
host53:/tmp$ /usr/local/gcc/4.3.2/bin/g++ a.cc
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__divdi3
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__moddi3
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__udivdi3
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__umoddi3
ld: 0711-224 WARNING: Duplicate symbol: .__udivmoddi4
ld: 0711-345 Use the -bloadmap or -bnoquiet option to obtain more information.
It looks like a 5.3 regression - could you have look at the problem again,
please?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38547