H.J.,
Oddly I saw no regressions in the g++ test suite at -m32/-m64 on
x86_64-apple-darwin14.
Jack
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:16 PM, H.J. Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Richard Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 02/10/2015 01:19 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> As an existing issue, I'm not sure why "specified" visibility is any
>>> different
>>> from unspecified visibility. As far as I'm aware, the "specified" bit
>>> simply
>>> means that the decl doesn't inherit inherit visibility from the class, or
>>> from
>>> the command-line. But once we're this far, the visibility actually applied
>>> to
>>> the symbol should be all that matters.
>>
>> The test is there to differentiate explicit visibility from that implied from
>> the command-line. Without it, we assume hidden visibility for external
>> symbols
>> too early, making the command-line option useless. This is visible even in
>> building libgcc.
>>
>> I believe this set of patches does what we want, and cleans things up a bit
>> in
>> the process.
>>
>>
>
> I tried them on Linux/x86-64. They caused:
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT
> FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT
> FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT
> FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/tls-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT
> FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11
> scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT
> FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++11
> scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT
> FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14
> scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT
> FAIL: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-wrap4.C -std=gnu++14
> scan-assembler-not _ZTW1i@PLT
>
>
> --
> H.J.
