From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 0F9FD385E45D; Fri, 31 May 2024 14:29:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0F9FD385E45D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1717165784;
	bh=pvzNoevfd8R1bqp4aWdBXBM8MrQ6PZDnsfMZ4GNwpFE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Iuo6q4SEZmtaWFjNIvkL6/QL14YYb4CWhwXeVu/YHLPMJsAIXqb7y+jbx3slWlSll
	 CbIybaj9ZZPtyTNqV99Y0tvC6WD0/d75K1wAtUh24+1zsSm/ayaX1SxVDZj465fAu+
	 Etj+aDFGePnivFwW1Jmo2sb1nnhhM81YzQkvfDr4=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/110572] ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol:
 std::type_info::operator==(std::type_info const&) const
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 14:29:43 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-110572-4-rKETSYqY4l@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110572-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110572-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110572

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |martin at martin dot st

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
CC Martin Storsjo to see if changing Clang would be possible, or if he has a
better idea for the preprocessor check suggested in comment 9.

It might be that Clang can't pre-define this macro because it has different
values for different mingw/mingw-w64/w64devkit toolchains, and clang wouldn=
't
know which one to be compatible with a priori.=