From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-54564-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Received: (qmail 15543 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2002 23:13:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/> List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org> Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15450 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 23:13:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO potter.sfbay.redhat.com) (209.249.29.60) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 23:13:40 -0000 Received: from dot.sfbay.redhat.com (dot.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.224]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g26N8Fh02797; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:08:15 -0800 Received: (from rth@localhost) by dot.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g26NDek08473; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:13:40 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: dot.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:13:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> To: David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> Cc: Andrew Cagney <cagney@mac.com>, Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: f build dies with: undefined reference to `lookup_name' Message-ID: <20020306151340.A8470@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com>, Andrew Cagney <cagney@mac.com>, Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <rth@redhat.com> <200203062309.SAA28674@makai.watson.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200203062309.SAA28674@makai.watson.ibm.com>; from dje@watson.ibm.com on Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 06:09:36PM -0500 X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 06:09:36PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > Richard> No, the *entire* processing of #pragma weak should be moved. > > I don't mean move everything. I do. > weak_finish walks weak_decls list. Yes. > We now need to walk the list outside varasm.c which means that the list > head cannot be static. No, it means all of weak_decls mark_weak_decls add_weak weak_finish remove_from_pending_weak_list should be moved and/or rewritten for c-common.c. r~