[Bug libstdc++/44475] bunch of warnings of second definition on osf

2010-08-07 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 


--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2010-08-07 16:32 
---
Ok...


-- 

paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44475

[Bug libstdc++/44475] bunch of warnings of second definition on osf

2010-06-09 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 


--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2010-06-09 08:32 
---
Rainer, can you help me on this? I don't even know how to categorize it, if
it's purely an ar issue or what else, I think you know this target...


-- 

paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-
   ||Bielefeld dot DE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44475

[Bug libstdc++/44475] bunch of warnings of second definition on osf

2010-06-09 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 


--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE  2010-06-09 
19:19 ---
Subject: Re:  bunch of warnings of second definition on osf

I've regularly seen those warnings, but ignored them since I've found no
ill effect and the testsuite largely passes (which doesn't use the
static libstdc++.a anyway).

While I do have Tru64 UNIX sources, the compilation tools (including nm,
ar, and ld) are missing, so I cannot use that source to shed some light
on the warning, and binutils aren't an option yet since they don't
allow a bootstrap to finish.

Unless the reporter can provide evidence that this warning causes actual
problems, I'd suggest to close this as INVALID.

Rainer


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44475