From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9376 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2004 17:36:03 -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 9369 invoked by uid 48); 14 Jan 2004 17:36:02 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040114173602.9368.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030925121817.12401.uddeborg@carmen.se> References: <20030925121817.12401.uddeborg@carmen.se> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/12401] G++ generates boguous weak definition of library routine X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01569.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-14 17:35 ------- You example does via the glibc headers, they are not wrong, not GCC. The problem with the unwantted side effect is wrong, you cannot depend on if something does not get pulled in or not pulled. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12401