From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1561 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2009 12:40:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 1551 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2009 12:40:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.152) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:40:43 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so45748fga.8 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.227.27 with SMTP id z27mr1093295fgg.66.1254400841391; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm460209fge.1.2009.10.01.05.40.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AC4A6B1.8070805@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:40:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: Dave Korn , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Dw2 CIE no longer contains personality routine augmentation? References: <4AC3FC1B.4080805@gmail.com> <84fc9c000910010138i2bb4fa1ep5e88a7cda08968af@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <84fc9c000910010138i2bb4fa1ep5e88a7cda08968af@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Dave Korn wrote: >> I'm using g++.old-deja/g++.brendan/new3.C as a testcase to investigate a >> problem with dllimport at the moment, and noticed something a bit unusual: >> >> Here is the CIE data from new3.C as compiled with gcc-4.3.4 >> And now with gcc trunk@152230, I see that the generated CIE no longer has >> any augmentation, particularly it doesn't point to the personality routine any >> more: >> Is this intentional? > > Yes. If it doesn't need one it doesn't get one. Augh! That was actually sooooo useful to me in making sure that my shared libstdc++ dll got linked into the executable even when all other references from the exe to the library got shunted aside by --wrap. Would it be reasonable to disable the optimisation on a target-specific basis? Either that or I'm going to have invent a modified version of --wrap, or just shove some other dummy reference to the library into object files unconditionally. (Actually that might turn out to be as simple as adding a -u option to the linker command line, so maybe it would even be better. Haven't tested that yet though.) cheers, DaveK