From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1256 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2003 20:25:38 -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 734 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003 20:24:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout02.sul.t-online.com) (194.25.134.17) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2003 20:24:25 -0000 Received: from fwd00.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 18UBsl-0005Gh-0E; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 21:23:59 +0100 Received: from mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de (03047300346-0001@[217.232.63.64]) by fmrl00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 18UBsg-1Gv2G0C; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:23:54 +0100 Received: from mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de (8.12.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id h02KNuuS015298; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:23:56 +0100 Received: (from martin@localhost) by mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h02KNp50015295; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:23:51 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de: martin set sender to martin@v.loewis.de using -f To: "John David Anglin" Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Miscompilation of glibc with CVS mainline References: <200301021916.h02JG3gC011234@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> From: martin@v.loewis.de (Martin v. =?iso-8859-15?q?L=F6wis?=) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 20:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Sender: 03047300346-0001@t-dialin.net X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes: > > Isn't this going to cause a problem with the gcc weak extension > > Any program that uses the weak extension is violating the standard, so > gcc is allowed to also violate the standard in a useful way in such a > case. More precisely, it's not a violation, it is an extension (4p8); a conforming implementation must document what the extensions are and must diagnose usage of extensions. For the GCC weak extension, the relevant clause of the standard does not apply: in a strictly conforming program, the weak extension cannot be used. The GCC documentation fails to mention that taking the address of a weak function may yield a null pointer; this is a documentation bug. Regards, Martin