This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Elimitate duplication of get_catalogs in different abi
- From: FranÃois Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:28:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: Elimitate duplication of get_catalogs in different abi
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55B694F5 dot 3070606 at gmail dot com> <55BA81B1 dot 9030206 at gmail dot com> <20150805205744 dot GC13355 at redhat dot com> <55D79415 dot 90600 at gmail dot com> <CAGNvRgBW8Yzj7_XG5DJfBdsLa0yhgZViEW=vAd7ijwZq9PVVag at mail dot gmail dot com> <55EB586A dot 8080405 at gmail dot com>
On 05/09/2015 23:02, FranÃois Dumont wrote:
> On 22/08/2015 14:24, Daniel KrÃgler wrote:
>> 2015-08-21 23:11 GMT+02:00 FranÃois Dumont <email@example.com>:
>>> I think I found a better way to handle this problem. It is c++locale.cc
>>> that needs to be built with --fimplicit-templates. I even think that the
>>> *_cow.cc file do not need this option but as I don't know what is the
>>> drawback of this option I kept it. I also explicitely used the file name
>>> c++locale.cc even if it is an alias to a configurable source file. I
>>> guess there must be some variable to use no ?
>>> With this patch there are 6 additional symbols. I guess I need to
>>> declare those in the scripts even if it is for internal library usage,
>>> right ?
>> I would expect that the new Catalog_info definition either has deleted
>> or properly (user-)defined copy constructor and copy assignment
>> - Daniel
> This type is used in C++98 so I need to make those private, not deleted.
> With this change, is the patch ok to commit ?
What about this patch ?
I am still uncomfortable in exposing those implementation details in the
versionned symbols but I don't know how to do otherwise. Do you want me
to push this code in std::__detail namespace ?