Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ ABI issues with __int128

2011-03-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:32:14PM +0100, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > > Well, such stricter checking wouldn't be completely painless, e.g. currently > > both current baseline_symbols.txt and the ones I've posted don't include the > > two TLS: lines, because of the fear that not everyone has TLS enable

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ ABI issues with __int128

2011-03-21 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
> Well, such stricter checking wouldn't be completely painless, e.g. currently > both current baseline_symbols.txt and the ones I've posted don't include the > two TLS: lines, because of the fear that not everyone has TLS enabled. > If baseline_symbols.txt right now miss some symbols, it is not a b

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ ABI issues with __int128

2011-03-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:52:52PM +0100, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > > The problem is that abicheck only flags as incompatible additions to > > GLIBCXX_3.4, but not other base versions.  Ideally it would flag addition > > to any version that hasn't been added (addition of the version is flagged > > b

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ ABI issues with __int128

2011-03-21 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
> Most of the linux targets are actually __GXX_TYPEINFO_EQUALITY_INLINE 1 > and thus perhaps if we want to maintain some ABI compatibility with 3.4-ish > inlined typeid comparisons, we might need to export _ZTS* for _ZTI* > that could somehow be emitted for user code too. Right, for C++98 types.

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ ABI issues with __int128

2011-03-21 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
> The problem is that abicheck only flags as incompatible additions to > GLIBCXX_3.4, but not other base versions.  Ideally it would flag addition > to any version that hasn't been added (addition of the version is flagged > by > OBJECT:0:CXXABI_1.3.5 > etc. entries (no @s in it). > This patch for

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ ABI issues with __int128

2011-03-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 01:58:24AM +0100, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > 2011-03-19 Jakub Jelinek > > * config/abi/pre/gnu.ver (CXXABI_1.3): Don't export _ZT[IS][PK]*[no]. > (CXXABI_1.3.5): Export _ZTI[PK]*[no]. > > This looks good to me, nice catch. I'll figure out what happened with >

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ ABI issues with __int128

2011-03-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 01:58:24AM +0100, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > 2011-03-19 Jakub Jelinek > > * config/abi/pre/gnu.ver (CXXABI_1.3): Don't export _ZT[IS][PK]*[no]. > (CXXABI_1.3.5): Export _ZTI[PK]*[no]. > > This looks good to me, nice catch. I'll figure out what happened with >

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ ABI issues with __int128

2011-03-19 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
2011-03-19 Jakub Jelinek * config/abi/pre/gnu.ver (CXXABI_1.3): Don't export _ZT[IS][PK]*[no]. (CXXABI_1.3.5): Export _ZTI[PK]*[no]. This looks good to me, nice catch. I'll figure out what happened with check_abi when I'm back, conductivity-wise. And: > And another question i

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ ABI issues with __int128

2011-03-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:19:04AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:05:41AM -0700, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > > > > Here's the 4_6-branch version, approved by Jakub. > > Comparing the additions in x86_64-linux libstdc++, I still see a couple of > wrong exports, in particular