From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 736 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2009 15:05:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 648 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Dec 2009 15:05:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:05:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB1F5NUB008699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:05:23 -0500 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB1F5M3e013327; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:05:22 -0500 Message-ID: <4B1530B2.2090806@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:39:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091116 Shredder/3.0.1pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Jelinek CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] Optimize C++ comdat ctors/dtors in classes without virtual bases (PR c++/3187, take 3) References: <20091130223653.GO22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> <4B149197.4040304@redhat.com> <20091201074526.GP22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20091201074526.GP22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 On 12/01/2009 02:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > 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? > > Yes. OK. >>> + && (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. OK. The patch is OK. Jason