> This test case is valid, and the results observed are in incorrect; in
> other words, yes, there is a bug.
Thanks for confirming.
> In general, comparison of type_info objects is supposed to be done by
> checking for address equality of the type info strings. On systems
> without weak symbols, we use strcmp. (Look for
> __GXX_MERGED_TYPEINFO_NAMES in <typeinfo>.) In the situation where we
> use strcmp, I would expect to see this bug. In the situation where we
> do not use strcmp, I would not expect to see that bug -- because I would
> expect that the type_info objects and the corresponding type_info
> strings are local symbols. If that is not the case, then that is the bug.
data1 0x1 // Action record table
data1 0x0
.align 8
data8.ua @gprel(DW.ref._ZTIZ3foovE1S#)
.hidden DW.ref._ZTIZ3foovE1S
.weak DW.ref._ZTIZ3foovE1S#
.section .gnu.linkonce.s.DW.ref._ZTIZ3foovE1S,"aws",@progbits
.align 8
.type DW.ref._ZTIZ3foovE1S#, @object
.size DW.ref._ZTIZ3foovE1S#, 8
DW.ref._ZTIZ3foovE1S:
data8 _ZTIZ3foovE1S#
Found both in u.S and t.S and merged by the linker.
--
Eric Botcazou
