On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> when gcc emits vague linkage data for C++ like vtables it makes them all
> weak. Is there some reason why this needs to be done?
In the case of vtables, they are only weak if all the virtual functions
are defined as inline. Otherwis
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> Which means that in such case there's no reason to have those symbols weak,
> and having them weak means that the symbol lookup in ld.so for them will be
> more expensive (because it has to search all libraries for a non-weak symbol
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> when gcc emits vague linkage data for C++ like vtables it makes them all
> weak. Is there some reason why this needs to be done?
>
> If I'm getting it right, based on e.g. on the comment in binutils/bfd/elf.c
> saying that they are
