https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
--- Comment #42 from Arunprasad 2012-10-19
10:34:11 UTC ---
So I'm assuming like the issue still exists in gcc family of tool-chains. Fix
has been temporarily suspended due to ABI compatibility.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-19
10:05:55 UTC ---
The reason why this hasn't been closed is that we only use an alias of one kind
of ctor (resp. dtor) to the other one if they are the same (and for deleting
dtor just always cal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
--- Comment #40 from Arunprasad 2012-10-19
06:41:04 UTC ---
Thank you.Is there any way to find it from nm output.?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
Arunprasad changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ararunprasad at gmail dot
--- Comment #37 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-02 14:31 ---
Subject: Bug 3187
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 2 14:31:21 2009
New Revision: 154912
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154912
Log:
Fix a backport glitch for PR c++/3187.
Modified:
branches/re
--- Comment #36 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 20:09 ---
Subject: Bug 3187
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 1 20:09:37 2009
New Revision: 154880
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154880
Log:
PR c++/3187
* optimize.c (cdtor_comdat_group): Ne
--- Comment #35 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 09:54 ---
Subject: Bug 3187
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 18 09:53:52 2009
New Revision: 154284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154284
Log:
PR c++/3187
* cgraph.h (struct cgraph_node): Add
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jason at gcc dot gnu dot org|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|
--- Comment #34 from carrot at google dot com 2009-08-27 01:40 ---
There is one optimization that we can do without affecting the ABI and linker
compatibility. The delete destructor(D0) always contains the content of
complete desturctor(D1) followed by a function call to delete. So inste
--- Comment #33 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-22 03:11 ---
Bill Maddox posted a patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg01147.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
--- Comment #32 from alexandre dot nunes at gmail dot com 2008-10-21 18:37
---
I was considering using C++ for an arm-elf target, but I'm dropping that in
favour of plain C because of this silly thing. This sucks, because other than
that g++ does a pretty decent job when generating smal
--- Comment #31 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-01 16:07
---
(In reply to comment #27)
> (In reply to comment #20)
>
> Ian proposed handling the simple case in which the two constructors ("clones")
> are identical by emitting the code only once, but labelling it with the
>
--- Comment #30 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-29 13:57 ---
Dear Daniel, we would like to fix all bugs but we cannot force volunteers to
fix specific bugs and, on the other hand, hired developers fix those bugs that
are most interesting for their employers.
If this were such
--- Comment #29 from dbaldin at upb dot de 2008-07-29 11:32 ---
I wonder if there is anybody working on this bug since there is no target
milestone assigned to it. This bug is definitly not an enhancement since due to
this bug it is impossible/or very hard to create good software for emb
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #28 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 20:20 ---
unsuspending.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #27 from maddox at google dot com 2007-05-25 04:57 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Ian proposed handling the simple case in which the two constructors ("clones")
are identical by emitting the code only once, but labelling it with the symbols
for both constructors. This scheme
--- Comment #26 from gcc at mirality dot co dot nz 2006-09-05 07:18 ---
This is very aggravating, and *NEEDS* to get fixed soon. Even if only for the
common duplicate-symbol-on-most-platforms case, that's a significant
improvement over what it's doing now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #25 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-05 04:00
---
Subject: Re: gcc lays down two copies of constructors
"pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| But that does not work for some assemblers/file formats (like Darwin) as
| Darwin's as
--- Comment #24 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-05 03:58
---
Subject: Re: gcc lays down two copies of constructors
"ian at airs dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I don't feel that this PR should be suspended, at least not until we
| have fixed the common case.
--- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-05 00:55
---
For future reference:
a patch which would fix this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-08/msg00354.html
Previous discussions about this issue:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-12/msg00474.html
More about the pa
--- Comment #22 from ian at airs dot com 2006-02-05 00:42 ---
The fact that it does not work everywhere is not a valid reason that it should
not be implemented where it can work, particularly since the places where it
can work are, as it happens, most places.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-05 00:27
---
Subject: Re: gcc lays down two copies of constructors
On Feb 4, 2006, at 7:20 PM, ian at airs dot com wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #20 from ian at airs dot com 2006-02-05 00:19 ---
> In many common cases,
On Feb 4, 2006, at 7:20 PM, ian at airs dot com wrote:
--- Comment #20 from ian at airs dot com 2006-02-05 00:19 ---
In many common cases, the two constructors are identical. It should
not be
hard to simply emit both appropriate symbols before the function.
That does
not require
--- Comment #20 from ian at airs dot com 2006-02-05 00:19 ---
In many common cases, the two constructors are identical. It should not be
hard to simply emit both appropriate symbols before the function. That does
not require any change to the ABI, but it eliminates the problem in the c
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 02:07
---
Supending as there was ABI work that needed to be done to fix this.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
21:19 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> This problem makes it difficult to debug C++ code. This is affecting the
> systemC (www.systemc.org) community. It is more than a minor issue those
> debugging C++.
The debuger
--- Additional Comments From larue at cadence dot com 2005-06-15 21:09
---
This problem makes it difficult to debug C++ code. This is affecting the
systemC (www.systemc.org) community. It is more than a minor issue those
debugging C++.
--
What|Removed
30 matches
Mail list logo
