> Yes, this indeed looks like (most probably my) bug in the constant folding
> code that now uses extern vtables. I will fix it. So we can not take
> comdat linkage decl from external vtable when we no longer have its body
> around, right?
Sounds about the fix John was describing, yes. You can p
> not well-formed C++, for it violates the one-definition rule in that it
> *lacks* a definition for the virtual member function foo::~foo(). Does
> it make any difference if you add a definition?
Unfortunately no. Replacing the declaration with an inline definition
produces a copy of it in undef
On Jun 28, 2012, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
> Unfortunately, this found a bug in both gcc and clang (or in the
> itanium ABI, it is not very clear). The testcase is
not well-formed C++, for it violates the one-definition rule in that it
*lacks* a definition for the virtual member function foo::~foo
Quoting John McCall :
On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
There's no "for a long time" here. The ABI does not allow us to emit these
symbols with non-coalescing linkage. We're not going to break ABI
just because people didn't consider a particular code pattern when they
hacke
On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
>> There's no "for a long time" here. The ABI does not allow us to emit these
>> symbols with non-coalescing linkage. We're not going to break ABI
>> just because people didn't consider a particular code pattern when they
>> hacked in devirtual
> There's no "for a long time" here. The ABI does not allow us to emit these
> symbols with non-coalescing linkage. We're not going to break ABI
> just because people didn't consider a particular code pattern when they
> hacked in devirtualization through external v-tables.
If we take "the ABI"
On Jun 29, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
>> But that's pervasively true in C++ — the linker has to eliminate duplicates
>> all the time. Idiomatic C++ code ends up plunking down hundreds, if
>> not thousands, of inline functions in every single translation unit. This is
>> already a
Richi asked me to also report a gcc bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
> But that's pervasively true in C++ — the linker has to eliminate duplicates
> all the time. Idiomatic C++ code ends up plunking down hundreds, if
> not thousands, of inline functions in every single tran
On Jun 28, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:13:47PM -0400, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
> [ problem with visibility for bar::~bar for testcase ]
>> $ cat test.h
>> struct foo {
>> virtual ~foo();
>> };
>> struct bar : public foo {
>> virtual void zed();
>> };
>> $ cat de
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:13:47PM -0400, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
[ problem with visibility for bar::~bar for testcase ]
> $ cat test.h
> struct foo {
> virtual ~foo();
> };
> struct bar : public foo {
> virtual void zed();
> };
> $ cat def.cpp
> #include "test.h"
> void bar::zed() {
> }
> $ ca
Note1: I am not subscribed to the gcc list, please use reply-all.
Note2: I think the clang list is moderated for the first post, but it
is usually really fast. Sorry about that.
I recently implemented an optimization in LLVM to hide symbols that
the we "know" are available in every DSO that uses t
11 matches
Mail list logo
