On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:00:12PM -0700, Davda, Bhavesh P (Bhavesh) wrote:
> >
> > If you are munging the symbol table, then why on earth aren't
> > you just removing STB_WEAK at the same time? When you abuse
> > ELF like this, you've got to be prepared to run into its
> > stranger corners; I
>
> If you are munging the symbol table, then why on earth aren't
> you just removing STB_WEAK at the same time? When you abuse
> ELF like this, you've got to be prepared to run into its
> stranger corners; I don't think it's GCC's job to assist with this.
>
> > Is there anything in the C++ s
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:50:13PM -0700, Davda, Bhavesh P (Bhavesh) wrote:
> Well, yes and no.
>
> In general what you state is quite true.
>
> But there are always strange applications, and Avaya has one, where a
> final executable is really a "merge" of what used to be independent
> processes
20th Avenue | B3-B03 | Westminster, CO 80234, U.S.A.
| Voice/Fax: (303) 538-4438 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Jacobowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 2:40 PM
To: Davda, Bhavesh P (Bhavesh)
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: C++ -
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:33:33PM -0700, Davda, Bhavesh P (Bhavesh) wrote:
> The documentation for "-fno-weak" still states that:
>
> Do not use weak symbol support, even if it is provided by the linker.
> By default, G++ will use weak symbols if they are available. This
> option exists only for
The documentation for "-fno-weak" still states that:
Do not use weak symbol support, even if it is provided by the linker.
By default, G++ will use weak symbols if they are available. This
option exists only for testing, and should not be used by end-users;
it will result in inferior code and has
