Home Original page

2.12 branch: Sparc visibility failures

Jakub Jelinek jakub@redhat.com
Sun Feb 17 12:38:00 GMT 2002 
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 10:42:59AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 01:02:55AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 10:56:20PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > Is that really working around what the test is supposed to be testing,
> > > or is my interpretation correct?  Jakub?
> > 
> > Your interpretation is correct AFAICS.  Definitely the compiler
> > is entitled to make the transformation it does.  I can't see how
> > the result could be changed if the test uses the weak attribute
> > instead of the asm.
> 
> Which leads to the question: what to do?  I can't add __attribute__,
> because that's a GCC-ism and I won't be surprised if Sun's compiler
> does something similar.  XFAIL for sparc-linux?

And
asm (".weak visibility");
asm (".weak visibility_var");
(in sh1.c) is not a GCC-ism?
This is not guarded by any define...

	Jakub
More information about the Binutils mailing list