Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:14:35 -0800 From: bmah@cs.Berkeley.EDU (Bruce A. Mah) To: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> Cc: nate@sri.mt.net (Nate Williams), mheller@student.uni-kl.de, hackers@freebsd.org, bmah@cs.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Q: Somebody working on more recent binutils ? Message-ID: <199602141814.KAA24558@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:09:14 EST." <199602140209.VAA23082@hda.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Dufault writes: > > > > > I'd like to know if someone is porting gas/ld 2.6 or 2.5.x ? > > > > Gas works already, ld is not going to happen anytime soon, if at all. > > > > > To have a more recent gas/ld than the ones coming with the > > > distribution is absolutely necessary for running g++ 2.7.2 > > > andd libg++2.7.1 because g++ needs the .weak symbols in > > > some circumstances to produce the 'right' code. > > > > Are you absolutely *sure*? According to recent reports posted to this > > list (today or yesterday) it isn't necessary. All that's required is to > > remove the creation of .weak symbols by gcc2.7.2. > > All I really know so far is that Ptolemy builds and at least some > demos run without the .weak symbol support. I was just going to test > things some more. I'd sure like the definitive > answer on .weak symbols and the need in g++. #undef LURK Another data point: I'm working on a very large IP-over-ATM network simulator (~26,000 lines of C++). To date, I've seen identical results on my DEC Alpha at work (Digital UNIX 3.2, g++ 2.7.2) and my PC at home (FreeBSD 2.1.0-RELEASE, g++ 2.7.2 with "no .weak symbol" patch). So far, no indications of compiler malfunctions. Bruce. #define LURK 1
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602141814.KAA24558>