From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12973 invoked by alias); 15 May 2002 19:07:03 -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 12961 invoked from network); 15 May 2002 19:06:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kiruna.synopsys.com) (204.176.20.18) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2002 19:06:57 -0000 Received: from maiden.synopsys.com (maiden.synopsys.com [146.225.100.170]) by kiruna.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1605BF8BB; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atrus.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maiden.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10793; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:03:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Buck Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by atrus.synopsys.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA11847; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200205151902.MAA11847@atrus.synopsys.com> Subject: Re: Minimal GCC/Linux shared lib + EH bug example To: austern@apple.com (Matthew Austern) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:29:00 -0000 Cc: mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell), jason@redhat.com (Jason Merrill), rwgk@cci.lbl.gov (Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve), gcc@gcc.gnu.org, c++std-ext@research.att.com In-Reply-To: <9399EFBA-6833-11D6-B573-00039390D9E0@apple.com> from "Matthew Austern" at May 15, 2002 11:42:58 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg01182.txt.bz2 Matt Austern writes: > There are at least two interesting questions we might ask: > (1) what should a future version of the C++ standard say > about dynamic libraries? > (2) considering what the standard says right now, and > recognizing that we're talking about behavior outside > the scope of the standard, what behavior for gcc would > best serve users on a linux/ELF platform? There's a hybrid question as well, since both C++ and ELF have standards. C++ has the one-definition rule, which is contradicted by the way weak symbols work in ELF, so we have a tension between two standards. So: what should a future version of the ELF standard say about C++ dynamic libraries? as it seems that any compiler targeting an OS that supports ELF should provide the same semantics.