On 02/01/2012 08:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Sure, but would they ever be provided by different CUs? If some CU says it can provide _ZN1SD1Ev, doesn't it either always say that it can provide _ZN1SD2Ev, or none of the CU is able to provide the latter (at least in valid C++ without ODR violations)?
Yes.
I meant if the linker says it wants S::~S(), you'd see that in CU25 the rpo file offers both of them and you'd mark both for compilation.
That might result in emitting variants that aren't needed, but I suppose that isn't so bad. I'll give it a shot.
Do users really want to demangle linker maps? I would never want that, e.g. because it is ambiguous and less compact.
I'm surprised by that too, but apparently CodeSourcery clients do want that. Jason
