On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/10/2015 01:19 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> As an existing issue, I'm not sure why "specified" visibility is any >> different >> from unspecified visibility. As far as I'm aware, the "specified" bit simply >> means that the decl doesn't inherit inherit visibility from the class, or >> from >> the command-line. But once we're this far, the visibility actually applied >> to >> the symbol should be all that matters. > > The test is there to differentiate explicit visibility from that implied from > the command-line. Without it, we assume hidden visibility for external > symbols > too early, making the command-line option useless. This is visible even in > building libgcc. > > I believe this set of patches does what we want, and cleans things up a bit in > the process. > >
I tried them on Linux/x86-64. They caused: FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT -- H.J.
