This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Use COMDAT section group instead of gnu.linkonce?
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: Jim Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 22:59:29 -0700
- Subject: Re: Use COMDAT section group instead of gnu.linkonce?
- References: <20040501034300.GA22385@lucon.org><20040501042506.GS2565@bubble.modra.org><87d65obuji.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><20040501055008.GA24493@lucon.org> <20040501070618.GA25679@lucon.org><20040501144439.GU2565@bubble.modra.org><87wu3wrnu5.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><20040502134110.GY2565@bubble.modra.org><20040502145558.GB1380@lucon.org> <4096AFF8.10305@specifixinc.com><20040504054619.GA5965@lucon.org>
"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> With my current binutils COMDAT group patches, I patched gcc 3.4 to
> use COMDAT group instead of gnu.linkonce sections. There are no
> regressions on ia32, ia64 and x86_64:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-05/msg00175.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-05/msg00174.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-05/msg00173.html
>
> Should we start moving toward COMDAT section group? It will help fix
> DWARF2 problems.
I for one would like to see that happen in 3.5.
zw