public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "zak at transversal dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/26195] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] pragma interface no longer handles explicit names
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:08:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060214120802.11919.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-26195-1827@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #7 from zak at transversal dot com  2006-02-14 12:08 -------
(We are currently using these pragmas extensively to ensure that various
symbols are laid down *only* in low-level libraries, as a partial workaround
for the COMDAT/dlopen issues described in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-10/msg01118.html)


My patch doesn't touch the lbasename call used to create the implicit parameter
to the directives (ie the one stored in ifiles and passed to interface_strcmp)
-- so the path by which the file is included shouldn't affect the matching
between pragmas without explicit parameters.

The change only affects the filename passed to get_fileinfo. If a header is
included in one place as "[path1]/foo.h" and in another as "[path2]/foo.h",
then there will be two c_fileinfo structs, but both will have processed the
pragmas in the same way (and with the same implicit parameter "foo.h"), causing
interface_only and interface_unknown to be identical in the two structs.

Even if it was necessary, retaining the lbasename calls for the implicit case
doesn't seem practical as the calls to get_fileinfo are made precisely to find
out whether these pragmas are in effect (by looking at interface_only and
interface_unknown) -- hence the argument to the call can't easily depend on
those same pragmas.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26195


  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-02-14 12:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-02-09 13:34 [Bug c++/26195] New: " zak at transversal dot com
2006-02-10 15:00 ` [Bug c++/26195] " zak at transversal dot com
2006-02-10 15:53 ` zak at transversal dot com
2006-02-10 17:05 ` zak at transversal dot com
2006-02-13 18:47 ` [Bug c++/26195] [4.0 regression] " zak at transversal dot com
2006-02-13 18:48 ` [Bug c++/26195] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-13 22:18 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-14  9:02 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-14 12:08 ` zak at transversal dot com [this message]
2006-02-24  0:31 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-01 15:57 ` zak at transversal dot com
2006-04-18 16:18 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2006-05-25  2:40 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-07  6:53 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-07  7:08 ` [Bug c++/26195] [4.0/4.1 " jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-07 22:27 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-07 22:38 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-07 23:04 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20060214120802.11919.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).