--- Comment #80 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-31 22:45 ---
- if its not safe for all architectures we'd already run into heaps of problems
because both libsupc++ and libgcc2 already include similiar pragmas.
- not hiding a symbols is better than the resulting issues when h
--- Comment #74 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-25 15:41 ---
yes, well one reason for it is that several libs (e.g. libgcc2) already use
push/pop visibility macros and it doesn't seem to harm.
furthermore I manually added push/pop macros to libstdc++ headers on a debian
s
--- Comment #72 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-24 05:22 ---
why is it pointless? just because it doesn't work on some target architectures
doesn't mean it doesn't work on most main archs.
I find it pointless that a patch isn't applied just because it doesn&
--- Comment #70 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-21 11:36 ---
whats the status of the patch? can we at least have the visibility push/pop
patch for libstdc++ in gcc 4.0.x branch?
Marc: what is the reason this patch is rejected? sure its not a regression, but
visibility support is
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||mueller at kde dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17554
--- You are receiving this mail
5 matches
Mail list logo
