followups to your visibility work
Tue Aug 10 02:19:00 GMT 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 8 Aug 2004 at 18:24, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Yes, the ISO standard permits you to redefine operator new. However,
> it does not permit you to define it as a "hidden" function -- because
> it doesn't talk about such things at all. The closest analog is that
> it does not allow you to define it as a "static" function. It's
> sensible, then, to disallow defining it as a hidden function, either.
> That is what my patch does, assuming it does not have a bug; I do not
> believe you can define "operator new" as a hidden function in the
> current version of the compiler.
> If you can, and the linker crashes, that is both a compiler bug (in my
> patch) and a linker bug (due to the crash).
Ok, that makes me happy then.
Have you tested your patch with code which redefines global operator
new to be inlined? Again, the standard doesn't say much here but
certain STL implementations do do it as does my library, as I must
force anything using my code to use my operator new exclusively (it's
a secure operator new).
Inlined makes the symbol go linkonce and weak yes? What happens if -
fvisibility-inlines-hidden is set?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: idw's PGP-Frontend 18.104.22.168 / 9-2003 + PGP 8.0.2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gcc-patches