This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compiling glibc-2.3.2 (-2.3.3?) snapshot 20031115 with gcc-3.4snapshot 20031119
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:07:30 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: Compiling glibc-2.3.2 (-2.3.3?) snapshot 20031115 with gcc-3.4snapshot 20031119
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Matt Austern wrote:
> Given the feature set as it currently stands, is it reasonable to say
> that the default is just default and that we don't need to distinguish
> between default and unspecified? Again, I hope so; we could always
> expand the two-bit visibility field to three bits, but I'd rather not do
> that unless it's really necessary.
FWIW I agree. If such a cmdline option would be introduced it should only
apply to decls not having _any_ visibility attribute. Until then we only
need four states (with non-specified being equal to "default").
If such an option is introduced somewhen it should apply only to those
decls not having any visibility attribute. I.e. this would mean, that
visibility("default") would really mean STV_DEFAULT, in particular it
would not be the same as not specifying such an attribute, despite of this
being a bit confusing. But as said this could be postponed until such
cmdline option is available.
Ciao,
Michael.