https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Write a plugin. It's trivial using gcc-python-plugin, see
http://blog.cuviper.com/2014/01/23/add-new-warnings-to-gcc-with-python/
A custom plugin is far more suitable to your purpose than adding yet anoth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
Phil Miller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||unmobile at gmail dot com
--- Comment #32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #31 from Ian Lance Taylor 2010-10-22 23:55:44
UTC ---
As I understand this, this is a request for a warning for any definition of a
global variable. Is that correct?
Such a warning certainly can not be part of -Wall or -Wextra. Glo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #30 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-22
20:36:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> > Are those libraries that crash designed to be used via dlopen, rather than
> > linking to them explicitly?
> Apparently they are (the authors would hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #28 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-22
19:49:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> I don't think dlmopen has anything to do with C++ namespaces, but I could be
> wrong
>
> Are those libraries that crash designed to be used via dlopen, r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #27 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-22
07:37:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> [SNIP]
> Are those libraries that crash designed to be used via dlopen, rather than
> linking to them explicitly?
I'm not sure. How can one tell?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-22
07:34:55 UTC ---
I don't think dlmopen has anything to do with C++ namespaces, but I could be
wrong
Are those libraries that crash designed to be used via dlopen, rather than
linking to them explic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #25 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-22
05:52:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 22112
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22112
Test for Load/Unload Crash
Attached is a test program similar to the program posted on
http://gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #24 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-22
01:59:34 UTC ---
Hi Jonathan,
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> >
> > [SNIP]
>
> There are a number of options for making sure the global is private to the
> library, thus av
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
19:52:12 UTC ---
Hi Jonathan,
[Sorry about the top post].
I'm going to wrap up my request, and hope you and the GCC team will find that
-Wglobal-variable would be useful under some circumstances.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-21
18:54:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I'd forgotten the search was even there - I might suggest removing it, since
> it's apparently not indexed anything this month, and probably much longer
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
18:49:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Oh, I never use the search, it's always been useless
>
> just click on the first month in the list,
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/ shows the m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
18:47:03 UTC ---
I'd forgotten the search was even there - I might suggest removing it, since
it's apparently not indexed anything this month, and probably much longer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
18:41:20 UTC ---
Oh, I never use the search, it's always been useless
just click on the first month in the list,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/ shows the messages in date order, they
appea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
17:37:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Hi Jonathon,
>
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > you realise you can wait and it will show up?
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/msg00248.html
> I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
16:59:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> >
> > Good point: here's what I would recommend: common sense. Myself, Alexey, a
> > number of packagers across the globe, an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
16:24:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
>
> Good point: here's what I would recommend: common sense. Myself, Alexey, a
> number of packagers across the globe, and untold others have performed th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
16:15:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> also, I'm not "the GCC team" and I don't speak for anyone else
My apologies. I made the leap that you were part of the team due to your email
address.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
16:13:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Hi Johnathon,
> > (In reply to comment #5)
> > > oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused
> > > a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
16:10:41 UTC ---
Hi Jonathon,
(In reply to comment #10)
> you realise you can wait and it will show up?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/msg00248.html
I've been known to be impatient at time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
15:28:05 UTC ---
I'm not on gcc-help, but I assume Alexey's looking at this report now ...
> I would expect that TWO different instances of the global variable would
> be created in TWO different s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
15:22:03 UTC ---
also, I'm not "the GCC team" and I don't speak for anyone else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-21
15:16:48 UTC ---
you realise you can wait and it will show up?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-10/msg00248.html
That, like your case, is an ODR violation, and like your example static.cpp was
no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
15:04:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I had a look at Cryptopp-SO-Test-1.zip
>
> building on 32-bit I can reproduce a segfault
>
> it doesn't build on 64-bit at all:
>
> 1) you can insert a p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-21
02:00:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I had a look at Cryptopp-SO-Test-1.zip
>
>
>
> I can see some value in the warning you want, but it's not going to help if
> you
> don't use the compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
23:48:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Hi Johnathon,
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused about
> > the
> > claim that more than o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-20
23:18:48 UTC ---
Hi Johnathon,
(In reply to comment #5)
> oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused about the
> claim that more than one process is involved...
My bad - the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
22:47:59 UTC ---
oh, and I only see one process invovled there ... I'm still confused about the
claim that more than one process is involved - do you mean more than one
thread?!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
22:46:45 UTC ---
I had a look at Cryptopp-SO-Test-1.zip
building on 32-bit I can reproduce a segfault
it doesn't build on 64-bit at all:
1) you can insert a pointer into an ostream without casting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-20
17:38:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > (In reply to comment #0)
> > > When a module meets the above compile and runtime requirements, a crash
> > > can
> > > occur i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-20
17:33:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > When a module meets the above compile and runtime requirements, a crash can
> > occur in global objects with destructors when m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
15:52:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> When a module meets the above compile and runtime requirements, a crash can
> occur in global objects with destructors when more than one process loads and
33 matches
Mail list logo
