This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: C ASSEMBLER_NAME patch


On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 02:50:05PM -0700, Bob Wilson wrote:
> On Thursday 24 July 2003 14:23, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> > Could you please double-check that you're using a version of the
> > compiler with this actual patch in it?
> >
> > Unless you're trying to build glibc with intermodule analysis, you
> > should not be seeing the behaviour you're seeing.
> 
> I'm using the gcc mainline sources as of yesterday (July 23).  I configured 
> with --target=xtensa-linux on a RedHat 7.3 machine and did nothing special to 
> enable intermodule analysis.  I have not made any changes to the glibc 
> makefiles, either.
> 
> I agree that I should not be seeing this behavior :-)
> 
> What exactly doesn't make sense to you?  An earlier version of your patch 
> caused static functions to be renamed even when intermodule analysis is not 
> being used, right?  As I understood it, your patch on July 17 was supposed to 
> fix that so that the static functions wouldn't be renamed when compiling only 
> one translation unit.  It's not working in this case.  The symptoms I am 
> seeing appear to match exactly the case you described in the patch as an 
> "ongoing problem".
> 
> Whether you fix that or not, the second and more immediate issue is that the 
> modified function names are not being used consistently (e.g., in the aliased 
> function declaration).

I could be misremembering, but I think that strong_alias in glibc just
expands to a string for asm() - there's nothing GCC can do about that.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]