On 23/03/2013 00:08, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2013/3/23 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com>:
>> Also, can you explain the motivation for this change? I don't see how it's
>> going to work right; from what I remember, we don't have weak definitions in
>> PE-COFF, just weak references. How does the correct definition get chosen
>> when we may have two definitions in a final link?
>
> Well, weak undefs are possible with pe-coff. We ran into that by
> porting cygwin to x64.
> But you are right that pe-coff doesn't support undefines (weak or
> none-weak) within final-link, so for a weak we need always a default
> implementation. This we added here.
I thought it does (support weak undefines within final link). Weak
references with no definition resolve to zero, no?
cheers,
DaveK
