[Bug libgcc/114646] libgcc's gthr.h still defines GTHREAD_USE_WEAK to 1 for newer glibc

2024-04-08 Thread bruno at clisp dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114646 Bruno Haible changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bruno at clisp dot org --- Comment #11

[Bug libgcc/114646] libgcc's gthr.h still defines GTHREAD_USE_WEAK to 1 for newer glibc

2024-04-08 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114646 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 57906 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57906=edit A patch I am testing this.

[Bug libgcc/114646] libgcc's gthr.h still defines GTHREAD_USE_WEAK to 1 for newer glibc

2024-04-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114646 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libgcc/114646] libgcc's gthr.h still defines GTHREAD_USE_WEAK to 1 for newer glibc

2024-04-08 Thread fw at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114646 --- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > What was done for libstdc++ was only specific to libstdc++ even though it > uses the same headers, it was not changed for the generic libgcc code which > is

[Bug libgcc/114646] libgcc's gthr.h still defines GTHREAD_USE_WEAK to 1 for newer glibc

2024-04-08 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114646 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- r12-5108 commit 80fe172ba9820199c2bbce5d0611ffca27823049 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date: Tue Nov 9 23:45:36 2021 + libstdc++: Disable gthreads weak symbols for glibc 2.34 [PR103133] Since Glibc

[Bug libgcc/114646] libgcc's gthr.h still defines GTHREAD_USE_WEAK to 1 for newer glibc

2024-04-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114646 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libfortran |libgcc --- Comment #6 from Andrew