From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Feb 14 14:32:29 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA19172
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:32:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hda.com (hda.com [199.232.40.182])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA19164
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from dufault@localhost) by hda.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA25543; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:38:43 -0500
From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com>
Message-Id: <199602142238.RAA25543@hda.com>
Subject: Re: Q: Somebody working on more recent binutils ?
To: bmah@cs.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:38:42 -0500 (EST)
Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, mheller@student.uni-kl.de, hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199602141814.KAA24558@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU> from "Bruce A. Mah" at Feb 14, 96 10:14:35 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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.
> 

I've since done a fair amount of testing, including in the places
where I believe the previous multiple definitions were, and it seems
OK.  Not the definitive answer, but it looks good.

-- 
Peter Dufault               Real-Time Machine Control and Simulation
HD Associates, Inc.         Voice: 508 433 6936
dufault@hda.com             Fax:   508 433 5267