From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23955 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2003 20:15:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23934 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 20:15:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (67.161.44.241) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 20:15:20 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9RKF4k3010221; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:15:05 -0800 Subject: Re: A bug present in 3.2 From: Jim Wilson To: Stelios Xanthakis Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:46:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1067285706.1078.55.camel@leaf.tuliptree.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg01339.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 01:09, Stelios Xanthakis wrote: > static inline int f () > { > static int i __attribute__ ((__section__(".gnu.linkonce.d.i"))); > return i++; > } That is an interesting looking trick, but it isn't clear if we can make it work. Having the variable be both static and in a linkonce section seems somehow contradictory to me. The immediate problem seems to be with ld. I suggest you mention it on the binutils mailing list. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com