From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-51455-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6073 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2012 01:07:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 6065 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Nov 2012 01:07:42 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from eagle.jhcloos.com (HELO eagle.jhcloos.com) (207.210.242.212)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 01:07:38 +0000
Received: by eagle.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10)	id B27F340107; Mon,  5 Nov 2012 01:07:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500)	id 158B560119; Mon,  5 Nov 2012 01:01:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: does graphite affect the c++ munging? Does -On?
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdQgYskqKjQ5DJuE5=jpompu0sqKQDULFEiNUmCuHxmhJA@mail.gmail.com>	(Jonathan Wakely's message of "Mon, 5 Nov 2012 00:32:16 +0000")
References: <m3mwyxklsi.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>	<CAH6eHdQgYskqKjQ5DJuE5=jpompu0sqKQDULFEiNUmCuHxmhJA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux)
Copyright: Copyright 2012 James Cloos
OpenPGP: ED7DAEA6; url=http://jhcloos.com/public_key/0xED7DAEA6.asc
OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B  63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 01:07:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3hap4lv67.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Hashcash: 1:30:121105:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org::vyXumD1Gu9OzDgyx:00000000000000000000000000000000000000001KnXd
X-Hashcash: 1:30:121105:jwakely.gcc@gmail.com::ZqVrH+rLv4Tw6/15:0000000000000000000000000000000000000005c4vc
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2

>>>>> "JW" == Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> writes:

JW> It doesn't match, c++filt shows that symbol is

Ah, thanks.  I'll check out c++filt.

JW> icu::LEFontInstance::mapCharsToGlyphs(char16_t const*, int, int,
JW> signed char, icu::LECharMapper const*, signed char,
JW> icu::LEGlyphStorage&) const

JW> char16_t is not unsigned short.

OK.

That said:

  :; g++ -march=amdfam10 -dM -E  - </dev/null | grep CHAR16
  #define __CHAR16_TYPE__ short unsigned int
  #define __GCC_ATOMIC_CHAR16_T_LOCK_FREE 2

Where should I look for why, given __CHAR16_TYPE__ is short unsigned int,
the compile of icu munges differently than the consumer of icu munges?

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6