On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 11:11, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 10:57:06AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Whoops, yes of course. Raising the topic of __cxa_guard_acquire was my
> > fault, and doesn't apply here, sorry.
> >
> > But we still want to get rid of the STB_GNU_UNIQUE binding for the
> > static variables, don't we?
>
> I think it is the other way around. At least when I try:
> static inline volatile int *foo (void) { static volatile int v = -1; return
> &v; }
> inline volatile int z = -1;
> volatile int *p = foo ();
>
> z is STB_GNU_UNIQUE, _ZZL3foovE1v is not. Whether that is a bug or not, I
> don't know...
But that's because foo() is declared static, which we can't do because
of C++ modules. That was the original problem Nathaniel was fixing.
If you remove the 'static' from foo() then both z and _ZZ3foovE1v use
@gnu_unique_object
