This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch testsuite]: g++.dg/abi
- From: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:47:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch testsuite]: g++.dg/abi
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAEwic4Zbg0uoN5yDag3Xn3i44isNw7EJEtKV0hTKxkNhFeSgPA at mail dot gmail dot com> <72DBDA1C-AEB8-4962-843E-231CBF6717CE at comcast dot net> <CAEwic4YxEGZ-Jh0cYtzR0fsDhBD8_d_NXPmnEkG5eZGWj71dRQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1403191735390 dot 14867 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
2014-03-19 18:37 GMT+01:00 Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
>> The concept of weak - as present in ELF - isn't known in COFF in
>> general. There is some weak, but it works only for static library and
>> in a limitted way. Therefore we can't (and don't) use it for COFF
>> targets.
>
> There are already two different checks (check_weak_available and
> check_weak_override_available), reflecting what different testcases need.
> Is the requirement for these tests logically different from both of those?
> If so, maybe there should be a third such check (even if in fact it does
> the same thing as check_weak_override_available).
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com
On a second thought the disabling of weak-available for mingw-targets
seems to be wrong. Actually weak is present. It just has a different
meaning.
Those testcases are - AFAIU them - actually checking that weaks are
available. Nevertheless the check here intends to probe if
weak-override is possible. As otherwise weaks make no sense here
AFAICS.
I don't think that we need to add a third check here. It might be
enough to check for weak-override-available instead for those tests.
Kai