Static symbols in libgcc

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < orn2gpejzy.fsf@amazonas.dcc.unicamp.br >you write:
  > Jeffrey A Law writes:
  > 
  > >   2. Move them into libstdc++.  Shouldn't this just involve moving
  > >   some functions into libstdc++?  Or to put it another way is
  > >   there some compelling reason to have these functions in libgcc?
  > 
  > AFAIK, these variables are not exclusively used by the C++ front-end,
  > so they shouldn't be moved into the C++-specific library.  gcc 2.8.0
  > was delayed that long in order to move exception handling into the
  > back-end.
Good point.


  > >   3. Declare them in such a way as to only get one copy; instead of
  > >   a static, can it be a global (yes, there's a namespace pollution
  > >   issue, but it's worth thinking about).   It could even possibly
  > >   be made weak global if that helps.
  > 
  > If it's named __gcc_something, it's not an issue, since this name is
  > reserved, at least in the C language.  Could this be a problem for
  > other languages?
Right. 


  > >   4. Or have a global pointer to a runtime initialized data structure
  > >   which has the stuff we need.  We have the capability to initialize
  > >   stuff at program startup, so it shouldn't be that much of a stretch
  > >   to use it for this purpose.
  > 
  > I don't understand how functions would obtain references to this data
  > structure.  Wouldn't they need a global symbol or such?
Yes, it would be a single global (presumably exported) symbol.


jeff