Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Should weak hidden undefined symbol be allowed?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
H.J.  
View profile  
 More options Feb 25 2008, 12:06 pm
From: "H.J." <hjl.to...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:06:17 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Feb 25 2008 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Should weak hidden undefined symbol be allowed?

> > Generate a DSO with DT_TEXTREL isn't very desirable. We want
> > to avoid it if possible. It is odd to tell compiler that you can't
> > always
> > assume a hidden symbol will be defined in the same component
> > when you access it.

> No stranger than telling it that the address of a weak symbol can be
> NULL.

My question is if compiler can assume that a hidden symbol is
always defined in the same component. If the answer is no,
a weak hidden symbol doesn't have to be defined in the same
component, then compiler needs to be careful about weak symbol
even if it is hidden. I just want to hear what everyone thinks.

Thanks.

H.J.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.