https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30499
Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #4)
> % cc ...
> ld: warning: alignment 32 of symbol `com2_' in test2.o is smaller than 64 in
> test1.o
>
> Note how it complains only about one, not both, symbols. And further:
I think that this is because com2_ is a global symbol, whereas com1_ is local
in test2.o and global in test1.o. (If you look you should see two definitions
of com1_ in the symbol table...)
> So, all in all, ultimately I think:
> a) the suggested wording of the warning is wrong, as not achievable in the
> general case
Presumably you mean the suggested new wording ?
Maybe the warning message should explicitly indicate which alignment has been
chosen ?
> b) the above example shows how the warning might even be regarded as error.
> Code that assumes 64-alignment for com1_ and com2_ (as requested by
> test1.o)
> _will_ break with the generated output and there's no way for the linker
> to magically make it work.
>
> In the interest of backward compatibility and in light of the existence of
> -fcommon for C, even though its default changed a couple years back, which
> makes mixture of common and data symbols be somewhat common, I'm not actually
> suggesting to make this an error, though.
Agreed - but it might be worthwhile extending the warning message to emphasize
that the discrepancy could cause problems.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
