This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Two level comdat priorities in gold
- From: Rafael EspÃndola <rafael dot espindola at gmail dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google dot com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:38:25 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Two level comdat priorities in gold
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAAs8HmwHCWKf+Onx=ERLgLpk6276f+jhuW-WiKpvhz6QDxWQ2Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKOQZ8wrnsj5UZx-trKXD+RBXS64TijHQPsJ1zwYeooZ5Kufsg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAkRFZLOacc874KkFD4iYuPk17qEMPLB5Sy4V57+UiCg0F48fA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKOQZ8ximo=B65dk2t6Ojwp_KEzWWr5zX6xpkR6_bVNMquJMcg at mail dot gmail dot com>
> While it is possible to construct test cases for this problem using C
> inline functions, in practice the problem is going to arise in C++.
> In C++ it's similar to the problem solved by using ABI tags. This
> suggests to me that we should have a compiler option allowing an ABI
> tag to be specified for all weak definitions. As far as I can see
> that would address the entire problem, with no confusion about -r, and
> permitting optimized functions to call optimized versions of the vague
> linkage definitions.
Interesting. Where are ABI tags documented?