From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-50606-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31256 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 19:03:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30462 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 19:01:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO linuxpc1.lauterbach.com) (213.70.137.66)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 19:01:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 28879 invoked by uid 82); 24 Apr 2002 19:01:10 -0000
Received: from Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com by linuxpc1.lauterbach.com with qmail-scanner-1.01 (inocmd32: /. . Clean. Processed in 41.157489 secs); 24 Apr 2002 19:01:10 -0000
Received: from dsl-213-023-060-201.arcor-ip.net (HELO enzo) (213.23.60.201)
  by linuxpc1.lauterbach.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 19:01:09 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 Prerelease
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:04:00 -0000
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
 Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au>,
 Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
 gcc@gcc.gnu.org
References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020423130143.04a21008@mail.lauterbach.com> <200204240003.42142@enzo.bigblue.local> <wvlr8l5vw8q.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <wvlr8l5vw8q.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <200204242101.39393@enzo.bigblue.local>
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01258.txt.bz2

On Wednesday 24 April 2002 19:31, Jason Merrill wrote:
> While I was looking at this bug earlier (before I saw that you were working
> on it), I made this change.  Checking TREE_SYMBOL_REFERENCED makes more
> sense than TREE_USED anyway, since it's the symbol we care about.

Hmm, it seems to make more sense for the warning check too, with TREE_USED 
changed to TREE_SYMBOL_REFERENCED the c++ regression 
g++.old-deja/g++.jason/template39.C went away along with a bunch of 
regressions in the libstdc++ testsuite, except one:

FAIL: 26_numerics/complex_inserters_extractors.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/home/fsirl/TC/gcc/BUILD/obj-gcc31-ppc/ppc-linux/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h: 
In instantiation of `const size_t std::basic_string<char, gnu_cha
r_traits, std::allocator<char> >::npos':
/home/fsirl/TC/gcc/BUILD/gcc-3.1/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/complex_inserters_extractors.cc:109:   
instantiated from here
/home/fsirl/TC/gcc/BUILD/obj-gcc31-ppc/ppc-linux/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h:217: 
warning: weak declaration of `const size_t std::basic_string<
char, gnu_char_traits, std::allocator<char> >::npos' after first use may 
result in unspecified behaviour

Can a c++ expert tell me if this warning makes sense in this testcase or does 
the warning check need still more refinement?

Hmm, Jason, I'm just noticing the purpose of the test in weak_finish. This 
seems to be a behaviour change compared to earlier gcc releases. A simple 
file like that:

#pragma weak foo1
extern int foo2 __attribute__((weak));

will now result in this assembly file:

        .file   "weak-pragma.c"
        .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 3.1 20020423 (prerelease)"

But upto 3.0.x we got:

        .file   "weak-pragma.c"
        .weak   foo2
        .weak   foo1
        .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 3.0.3 20011213 (prerelease)"

Are we sure there is no code out there relying on these lonely .weak 
statements? Was this change intended?

Franz.