public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rafael.espindola at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/62306] [4.9/5 Regression?] Change in the comdat used for constructors
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:24:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-62306-4-xyTHdI9IIQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-62306-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306

--- Comment #6 from Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail dot com> ---
OK, so should we declare r206182 an "unintentional bug fix" and mark this bug
wontfix?

To be clear, the ABI then is

For any class an implementation has the option of using one comdat per
constructor/destructor or using a C5/D5 comdat. I may make that decision based
on any profitability criterion. If using a C5/D5 comdat the rules are

* A C5 comdat must have C1 and C2.
* If a class has a virtual destructor, the D5 comdat must have D0, D1 and D2
* If a class has a non-virtual destructor, the D5 comdat must have only the D1
and D2 destructors. That is true even if the implementation uses D0 instead of
a call to D1 + _ZdlPv to implement "delete *x"

Should this be documented in

https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/cxxabi-1.86.html ?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-09-02 16:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-29 14:22 [Bug c++/62306] New: " rafael.espindola at gmail dot com
2014-08-29 20:16 ` [Bug c++/62306] " jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-01 20:58 ` rafael.espindola at gmail dot com
2014-09-02 15:33 ` rafael.espindola at gmail dot com
2014-09-02 15:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-02 16:24 ` rafael.espindola at gmail dot com [this message]
2014-09-02 18:04 ` rafael.espindola at gmail dot com
2014-09-03 20:45 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-03 20:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-04 18:01 ` rafael.espindola at gmail dot com
2014-09-10 18:35 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-10 18:40 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.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=bug-62306-4-xyTHdI9IIQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --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).