From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10114 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2003 00:21:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10100 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2003 00:21:42 -0000 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030726002142.10098.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "drow at mvista dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030725091122.11669.aj@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20030725091122.11669.aj@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/11669] [3.4 regression] Calling of static functions does not work (build of glibc broken) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg03077.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11669 ------- Additional Comments From drow at mvista dot com 2003-07-26 00:21 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] Calling of static functions does not work (build of glibc broken) This also "breaks" GDB in some cases. We already decided to use the old names for static functions in single-file mode. Being inconsistent about that is bad.