Re: [C++ PATCH] Optimize C++ comdat ctors/dtors in classes without virtual bases (PR c++/3187, take 3)

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:46:31PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/30/2009 05:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >	* config/abi/pre/gnu.ver: Don't export certain base dtors that
> >	weren't previously exported.
> 
> Is this necessary?  I thought it was OK to add new exported symbols, but 
> you'd know better than I.

Yes.  We definitely must not export them with the old symbol versions where
they have not been exported before (GLIBCXX_3.4 and GLIBCXX_3.4.10).
We could export them at @@GLIBCXX_3.4.14 (which would mean the same gnu.ver
changes and mentioning the D2 symbols in GLIBCXX_3.4.14 section), but that
has a problem that we only emit those D2 symbols when HAVE_COMDAT_GROUP, so
in !HAVE_COMDAT_GROUP configurations the exported list would be different.
I have no idea how to force generation of those symbols otherwise so that
they are exported on all targets.

> 
> >+	  && (SUPPORTS_ONE_ONLY || !DECL_WEAK (fns[0]))
> 
> This test seems unnecessary; I don't see the problem with using aliases 
> on targets with weak symbols but no one-only support.

This is to fix AIX (and is actually unrelated to this patch, it can be dealt
with separately).  In theory it should work well, but David Edelsohn
reported that some symbols were missing from libstdc++.so without it.  I
have no access to AIX and have no idea what AIX linker is doing with the
symbols.  !SUPPORTS_ONE_ONLY targets don't have DECL_ONE_ONLY, but instead
just use DECL_WEAK symbols, so I thought when we don't do this optimization
on !HAVE_COMDAT_GROUP SUPPORTS_ONE_ONLY targets for comdat and comdat-like
symbols, the world wouldn't end if we didn't support it even on the
far rarer !HAVE_COMDAT_GROUP !SUPPORTS_ONE_ONLY targets.

	Jakub