This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Minimal GCC/Linux shared lib + EH bug example
- From: "David Abrahams" <david dot abrahams at rcn dot com>
- To: <c++std-ext at research dot att dot com>
- Cc: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>,"Jason Merrill" <jason at redhat dot com>,"Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk at cci dot lbl dot gov>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,<c++std-ext at research dot att dot com>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:20:18 -0500
- Subject: Re: Minimal GCC/Linux shared lib + EH bug example
- References: <200205151902.MAA11847@atrus.synopsys.com>
- Reply-to: "David Abrahams" <david dot abrahams at rcn dot com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Buck" <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com>
> To: C++ extensions mailing list
> Message c++std-ext-5022
> Matt Austern writes:
> > There are at least two interesting questions we might ask:
> > (1) what should a future version of the C++ standard say
> > about dynamic libraries?
> > (2) considering what the standard says right now, and
> > recognizing that we're talking about behavior outside
> > the scope of the standard, what behavior for gcc would
> > best serve users on a linux/ELF platform?
> There's a hybrid question as well, since both C++ and ELF have standards.
> C++ has the one-definition rule, which is contradicted by the way weak
> symbols work in ELF, so we have a tension between two standards.
If so it may just mean that weak symbols are the wrong mechanism for
implementing some of these C++ features. If the ELF standards people
believe that the current ELF behavior is not mis-specified, we'd need a new
kind of weakness to support C++ well.
> what should a future version of the ELF standard say
> about C++ dynamic libraries?
Good question. What's the right forum for asking that?