danalbert added a comment. > Are you 100% sure that you're not just a person with broken code?
Absolutely, since it isn't my code ;) I maintain the toolchain and this is a behavioral change when switching from libstdc++ to libc++. > In other words, what did this guy from 2013 get wrong? -- or, if "he got > nothing wrong", then why can't you just follow his advice to eliminate the > duplicate typeinfos from your code? > http://www.russellmcc.com/posts/2013-08-03-rtti.html That post is all about binaries that were built with hidden visibility and says nothing about the case of `dlopen`. There's nothing wrong with the code as built. All the symbols have public visibility, all the `type_infos` are weak, everything works correctly if you explicitly link the libraries to the final executable or `dlopen` only one library (not always an option). If anyone is still skeptical, libsupc++ went through this at one point too and eventually decided to use `strcmp` by default because otherwise RTTI doesn't work in plugin architectures (which is essentially what JNI is). https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01239.html Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D38599 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
