--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 01:50
---
> However, some more
> general mechanism for setting the default ABI of a header might be useful.
> I'm
> thinking something like #pragma GCC visibility here.
Which is PR 15892 by the way.
--
http://gcc.gnu
--- Comment #10 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-28 01:31 ---
Andrew, stop closing this bug.
If necessary I will ask the SC for a statement preventing you from closing bugs
as invalid when the submitter disagrees, since you haven't shown a willingness
to listen to what they are
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-27 04:01 ---
Why do you think this is a bug? Again the options should not act this way at
all, it is a bit crazy to treat system headers different than normal headers.
In fact you can get different behavior when you do:
#includ
--- Comment #8 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-09-27 03:47 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Did you read the documention?
> Warning: if you use this switch, and num is nonzero, then you must build all
> modules with the same value, including any libraries. This includes the system
> li
--- Comment #7 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2006-09-27
03:23 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> Imagine building gcc itself with regparm 3. You probably don't want
> to mark up the gcc source to enable this, but ma
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-27 02:34 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Imagine building gcc itself with regparm 3. You probably don't want
> to mark up the gcc source to enable this, but marking up the system
> header files is definitely not an option.
Or even
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-27 02:33 ---
Did you read the documention?
Warning: if you use this switch, and num is nonzero, then you must build all
modules with the same value, including any libraries. This includes the system
libraries and startup modules.
--- Comment #4 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-09-27 02:19 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> First you should not be using options that change the ABI if you don't know
> what you are doing. because they change the ABI. Second, none of options you
> gave are r
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-27 00:32 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
First you should not be using options that change the ABI if you don't know
what you are doing. because they change the ABI. Second, none of options you
gave are really options because some p
