http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Schlüter <tobi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-13 09:32:10 UTC --- Hm, I don't know about anonymous symbols. If they exist and end up in modules (which I honestly don't know), I would hope that they would obtain their number from some counter, which should still be deterministic as it would be incremented as code and symbols are processed (which is hopefully all deterministic). My idea would be: submit the patch (maybe a non-C++ version as explained above), if the bug ever re-appears we'll need a more invasive solution.
