Compiling glibc-2.3.2 (-2.3.3?) snapshot 20031115 with gcc-3.4 snapshot 20031119

[Matt Austern]

On Dec 2, 2003, at 5:36 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

> Robert Moss <robert.moss@jesus.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> Andreas, can you confirm that this is in fact the problem, and that
>> it's nothing to do with the (possibly slightly ridiculous) situation
>> in glibc in which the source uses asm behind gcc's back in relation to
>> weak functions?
>>
>> Rob
>
> Let's wait for a GCC patch - but looking at the assembly it really
> seems to be a issue with broken hidden support.\

As you might have noticed from following the discussion on the
gcc list, the main reason I haven't fixed this yet is that we haven't
yet reached an agreement about what the semantics of the
visibility attribute should be when you've got multiple declarations
of the same symbol.

What assumptions does the glibc source make about this, and how
tightly wedded are you to those assumptions?

			--Matt