On 27/11/2019 18:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 05:48:21PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: >>>> On 26/11/19 00:57 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> and a few more, all DFP related. They used to be emitted by g++ for >>>>>> __fundamental_type_info in libsupc++/fundamental_type_info.cc and lived >>>>>> in the CXXABI_1.3.4 version. However, since Solaris *does* lack DFP >>>>>> support, that's no longer the case. I'm uncertain how best to deal with >>>>>> this, however. >>>>> >>>>> As I understand it, _GLIBCXX_USE_DECIMAL_FLOAT should already have been >>>>> undefined for this target, and so std::decimal::decimal32 etc. should not >>>>> have been usable (both the header not working without that define, and the >>>>> mode attributes in the header being rejected by the front end when DFP is >>>>> unsupported). I.e. such defines in libsupc++ would never have been usable >>>>> on this target, so I think they are something it should be safe to remove >>>> >from the ABI baseline. >>>> >>>> If it's actually impossible that any real program could have depended >>>> on those symbols, then I agree. >>> >>> this is exactly what I've got no way of telling, that's why I was asking >>> for guidance. Just removing the DFP symbols from the baselines works, >>> of course. >> >> I don't think any real program could have used those symbols; it would >> have required using __typeof (__builtin_fabsd32 (0)) or similar to access >> types that weren't normally available for those targets (and by accessing >> the types using builtins like that, you're getting a completely undefined >> function-calling ABI for them anyway). > > I think various tools we use to check ABI will be unhappy about removal > of symbols. Can't we on targets that do support aliases and don't support > decimal float e.g. alias the DFP rtti symbols to void rtti symbols?
what is the expected way to fix this issue? i see hppa-linux-gnu baseline was updated to remove the decimal rtti symbols, but other targets were not. is it better to update the baseline or wait for a generic fix?
