This is the mail archive of the email@example.com mailing list for the gas2 project.
|Index Nav:||[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]|
|Message Nav:||[Date Prev] [Date Next]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
> So did you report the bugs, and your fixes, a year ago? You could > have enabled the bug to have been fixed in the GNU sources a year ago, > too. The nonstandard behaviout in GCC is deliberate. See the comment in varasm.c line 1092: Yes, THAT is deliberate. Indeed, there would have been no need to report that fact about GCC. But I thought you were talking of fixes in ld. Is that not so? While for the linker, we use a variant of the Linux linker distributed of H.J.Lu, which is a somehow modified GNU ld. There again somebody did the work and put in warning messages for the case that commons were linked against library functions. Again, this person obviously knew what the problem was and deliberately decided to issue a warning instead of preventing the symbol to match. These are the sort of changes I thought we were talking about. Who is it who made these changes and didn't send them or report the problem? I am quite surprised to find that everybody thinks that GCC and LD should be changed. We modified them for our Linux distributions because we wanted strict C standard and POSIX conformance. But the standard conformant behaviour can also break many programs which rely on COMMONS. I think you're talking about two different changes as if they were one. We need to keep the distinction clear. We DO NOT want to make -fno-common the default. We DO want to fix LD so it does the right thing when common symbols are used.