From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24463 invoked by alias); 25 Aug 2008 18:14:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 23725 invoked by uid 48); 25 Aug 2008 18:12:43 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080825181243.23724.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/37170] [4.4 Regression]: gcc.dg/weak/weak-1.c In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg01931.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #47 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-08-25 18:12 ------- > To help shorten the number of iterations, can you please verify that the > failures all look as above in the .log files? You have to realize that I am C* illiterate. So I need more precise directives. For instance, do ... class Barf : virtual public Bar { public: virtual void init(int argc, char **argv) { Bar::init(argc, argv); } }; ... [ibook-dhum] f90/bug% g++44 /opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/offset1.C/var/tmp//ccIY8j6p.s:unknown:Undefined symbol: __ZTV4Barf can't be a weak_definition and ... struct B : virtual A { virtual int f() { return 1; } virtual int g() = 0; }; ... [ibook-dhum] f90/bug% g++44 -c /opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.brendan/misc11.C /var/tmp//cccB5iE4.s:unknown:Undefined symbol: __ZTV1B can't be a weak_definition look the same? My answer is "yes", but in the first case the symbol is a class and in the second one a struct(ure?), so the "yes" may be a mistake. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37170