--- Comment #108 from funtoos at yahoo dot com 2007-05-28 17:47 ---
but comments in bug 20218 say that its fixed in mainline, which means there was
a fix put into gcc for hidden visibility. So, are both the fix from prerelease
binutils and gcc mainline needed to fix this completely?
--
--- Comment #107 from simon dot strandman at telia dot com 2007-05-28
11:49 ---
(In reply to comment #106)
> I haven't tried the fix in 20218. surprisingly, moving to binutils
> 2.17.50.0.16.20070511 got rid of that problem. Do you know what exactly is
> going on? how did the latest bin
--- Comment #106 from funtoos at yahoo dot com 2007-05-28 05:16 ---
I haven't tried the fix in 20218. surprisingly, moving to binutils
2.17.50.0.16.20070511 got rid of that problem. Do you know what exactly is
going on? how did the latest binutils bypass the bug 20218?
--
http://gcc
--- Comment #105 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-05-28 05:01 ---
(In reply to comment #104)
> kdelibs doesn't link with gcc-4.2.0 with hidden visibility.
you need a path for pr20218.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You are receiving this mail because:
--- Comment #104 from funtoos at yahoo dot com 2007-05-28 04:15 ---
kdelibs doesn't link with gcc-4.2.0 with hidden visibility. It compiles and
links fine with gcc 4.1.2 with patch from Comment #86. That patch was included
by gentoo till 4.1.2 and dropped because this bug is supposedly f
--- Comment #103 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-03 17:37
---
*** Bug 31459 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #102 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 23:58
---
*** Bug 30900 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You
--- Comment #101 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-22 12:44 ---
Fixed.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #100 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 04:57 ---
Subject: Bug 19664
Author: bkoz
Date: Fri Jul 28 04:57:34 2006
New Revision: 115790
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115790
Log:
2006-07-27 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libs
--- Comment #99 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-20 23:37 ---
Subject: Bug 19664
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Jul 20 23:37:27 2006
New Revision: 115632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115632
Log:
2006-07-20 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jakub
--- Comment #98 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-20 22:01
---
*** Bug 28449 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #97 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 02:56 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
--- Comment #96 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 02:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=11912)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11912&action=view)
viz patch part one
Hey Jakub.
Here's a way to start in on this.
This does two things:
1) adds default visibil
--- Comment #95 from jakub at redhat dot com 2006-07-15 10:34 ---
Can this be revisited now?
namespaces now can have the visibility attribute, although it has to be
present on each opening namespace.
Guess sticking __attribute__((__visibility__("default"))) into
_GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE
--
Bug 19664 depends on bug 26612, which changed state.
Bug 26612 Summary: visibility and ODR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26612
What|Old Value |New Value
S
--
Bug 19664 depends on bug 27000, which changed state.
Bug 27000 Summary: visibility push/pop and templates go crazy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27000
What|Old Value |New Value
---
--
Bug 19664 depends on bug 27000, which changed state.
Bug 27000 Summary: visibility push/pop and templates go crazy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27000
What|Old Value |New Value
---
--
fang at csl dot cornell dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fang at csl dot cornell dot
|
--
mec at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mec at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- Comment #94 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-26 02:13
---
*** Bug 26846 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||visibility
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- Y
--
simon dot strandman at telia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon dot strandman at telia
|
--- Comment #93 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2006-04-04 00:23 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 03/04/2006, at 4:57 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #92 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #92 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 23:57
---
Both PR 27000 and bug 26984 are reasons why push/pop will fail currently.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||27000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You
--
braden at endoframe dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||braden at endoframe dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--
Bug 19664 depends on bug 21764, which changed state.
Bug 21764 Summary: visibility attributes on namespace scope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21764
What|Old Value |New Value
-
--- Comment #91 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-14 09:24
---
well, of course, because your libstdc++ is compiled with the wrong (LSB
incompliant btw) stdc++ allocator.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You are receiving this mail because: --
--- Comment #90 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-03-13 20:17 ---
with 4.1.1 snapshot + patches I get an arts crash today on my x86_64 box.
Starting program: /usr/bin/artsd
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x2af641d8 in __gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc >::allocate () from
--
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||26612
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You
--
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|10591 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You are r
--
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||10591
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You
--
dirtyepic dot sk at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dirtyepic dot sk at gmail
|
--- Comment #89 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 17:14
---
*** Bug 26217 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
mbeam at gxt dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mbeam at gxt dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--
--- Comment #88 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-15 23:41 ---
This patch doesn't solve the vector issue, does it? It doesn't look
like it, I would have expected it to need some C++ frontend changes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You are rec
--
hhinnant at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hhinnant at apple dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196
--- Comment #87 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-12-06 17:05 ---
current 4.1(+libstdc++ patch) works fine for PR21382 on amd64 and ppc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or ar
--- Comment #86 from bero at arklinux dot org 2005-11-03 09:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=10120)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10120&action=view)
Updated version of the patch to apply on current SVN
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
-
--- Comment #84 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-11-01 04:30 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 31/10/2005, at 7:59 PM, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Geoff, it's not as simple as just marking throwable types,
--- Comment #83 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 03:59 ---
I agree Geoff, we should hold off on this for 4.1, and try to hit 4.2. If
things get solid sooner, maybe this can be reconsidered. Adding this patch to
4.0.x is out of the question, it has the potential to change too
--- Comment #82 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-01 02:21 ---
To clarify: I have unassigned myself from this bug because I don't consider
myself sufficiently competent in this area to evaluate all the possible trade-
offs of the issue and don't want to block in any way the work of kn
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini at suse dot de |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
||do
--- Comment #81 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-10-31 23:29 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 31/10/2005, at 2:45 PM, mueller at kde dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #80 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-31 22:
--- 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 hiding a
--- Comment #79 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-10-31 22:14 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 31/10/2005, at 10:37 AM, ismail at uludag dot org dot tr wrote:
> --- Comment #78 from ismail at uludag dot org dot
--- Comment #78 from ismail at uludag dot org dot tr 2005-10-31 18:37
---
Paolo, this is surely a bug fix. Why can't it make it to 4.1 ? Waiting for 4.2
means that unpatched gcc's will suffer for more.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You are receiving
--- Comment #77 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-10-31 16:59 ---
Thanks Benjamin! Indeed, if you want to take care of this entire issue, you
are welcome (just reassign)! In any case, I'm not sure whether it's suited
for 4.1, at this point...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #76 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 16:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=10085)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10085&action=view)
hidden visibility for __gnu_internal
Without per-namespace visibility attributes, this is what we will have to d
--- Comment #75 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-10-25 15:44 ---
(In reply to comment #74)
> furthermore I manually added push/pop macros to libstdc++ headers on a debian
> system (which is broken regarding visibility support) and it made my testcase
> pass.
To be clear: I have nothin
--- 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
system (whi
--- Comment #73 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-10-24 09:14 ---
(In reply to comment #72)
> 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.
Are you really, really, sure that without patching the middle-
--- 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't work on
some archs (wh
--- Comment #71 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-10-21 11:40 ---
(In reply to comment #70)
> whats the status of the patch? can we at least have the visibility push/pop
> patch for libstdc++ in gcc 4.0.x branch?
See comment #63: at this stage changing libstdc++ is pointless.
--
ht
--- 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 ent
--
jwillemsen at remedy dot nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwillemsen at remedy dot nl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #69 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-08 13:42
---
*** Bug 24272 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||21764
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
--- Additional Comments From geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
22:21 ---
There was a comment in here about making visibility control happen at the
namespace level.
How would this work with, say, 'vector'? I would expect that if
-fvisibility=hidden is set, then
this instantiat
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
20:57 ---
*** Bug 23628 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-08-21 20:25 ---
*** Bug 22185 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
16:17 ---
*** Bug 22587 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
64 matches
Mail list logo
