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


  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: 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).