public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "roland at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/41091] Using section attribute in c and c++ function causes section type conflict Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:52:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100811235212.21646.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-41091-3639@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> ------- Comment #4 from roland at redhat dot com 2010-08-11 23:52 ------- The compiler is being internally inconsistent here. It somtimes decides that __attribute__((section ("name"))) means a "name" section in a COMDAT group, and sometimes decides that it means just a plain "name" section. If it's going to have that behavior implicitly, then it should not call this a conflict. Instead, it should implicitly recognize that the particular COMDAT version of "name" is a different animal than the non-COMDAT "name". In fact, it has an arguably more severe version of this bug too: class C { public: void m() { static int TWO __attribute__((section(".consts"))) = 2; } }; class D { public: void m() { static int THREE __attribute__((section(".consts"))) = 2; } }; int main (int argc, char **argv) { C inst = C(); inst.m(); D inst2 = D(); inst2.m(); return 0; } For that, it happily puts TWO and THREE initializers both in the COMDAT group for C::m()::TWO, which is quite clearly wrong. The left hand uses multiple different sections of the same name, but the right hand thinks that any section matching the simple name it's looking for is the same thing regardless of whether or not its a distinct COMDAT variant. -- roland at redhat dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roland at redhat dot com, | |jakub at redhat dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-11 23:52 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2009-08-17 13:58 [Bug c++/41091] New: " mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 4:50 ` [Bug c++/41091] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 7:48 ` mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-17 11:28 ` mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-11 23:52 ` roland at redhat dot com [this message] [not found] <bug-41091-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2021-02-02 18:09 ` equinox-gccbugs at diac24 dot net 2022-05-18 16:38 ` boreynol at microsoft dot com 2022-05-18 17:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-21 16:09 ` paul_robinson at playstation dot sony.com
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=20100811235212.21646.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: linkBe 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).