[cfe-commits] r163513 - /cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp

[Alexander Kornienko]

I could definitely try to find a number of other solutions, but
unfortunately it would be not fast, as I don't have a configuration that
allows to reproduce this issue, and I would have to ask the original
reporter to verify each version. And, after all, is this solution that bad?
What problems can it lead to?

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:23 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
> wrote:
> > Author: alexfh
> > Date: Mon Sep 10 09:54:38 2012
> > New Revision: 163513
> >
> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=163513&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Workaround for MacOSX build failure with gcc <= 4.4
> >
> > Summary:
> > A better solution to http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13777
> > Named namespace + more unique name to make ODR violations unlikely.
> >
> > Reviewers: chandlerc, doug.gregor, klimek
> >
> > Reviewed By: doug.gregor
> >
> > CC: cfe-commits
> >
> > Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D38
> >
> > Modified:
> >     cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp
> >
> > Modified: cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp
> > URL:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp?rev=163513&r1=163512&r2=163513&view=diff
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > --- cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp (original)
> > +++ cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp Mon Sep 10 09:54:38 2012
> > @@ -58,10 +58,10 @@
> >      "ast-dump-filter",
> >      cl::desc(Options->getOptionHelpText(options::OPT_ast_dump_filter)));
> >
> > -// Anonymous namespace here causes problems with gcc <= 4.4 on MacOS:
> > -// http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13777
> > -// namespace {
> > -class ActionFactory {
> > +// Anonymous namespace here causes problems with gcc <= 4.4 on MacOS
> 10.6.
> > +// "Non-global symbol: ... can't be a weak_definition"
>
> Judging by that diagnostic - is it possible that making the
> newASTConsumer member function non-inline would have been an
> alternative fix to the code?
>
> > +namespace clang_check {
> > +class ClangCheckActionFactory {
> >  public:
> >    clang::ASTConsumer *newASTConsumer() {
> >      if (ASTList)
> > @@ -73,10 +73,10 @@
> >      return new clang::ASTConsumer();
> >    }
> >  };
> > -// }
> > +}
> >
> >  int main(int argc, const char **argv) {
> > -  ActionFactory Factory;
> > +  clang_check::ClangCheckActionFactory Factory;
> >    CommonOptionsParser OptionsParser(argc, argv);
> >    ClangTool Tool(OptionsParser.GetCompilations(),
> >                   OptionsParser.GetSourcePathList());
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-commits mailing list
> > cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>



-- 
Alexander Kornienko | Software Engineer | alexfh at google.com | +49 151 221
77 957
Google Germany GmbH | Dienerstr. 12 | 80331 München
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120910/70e2e94f/attachment.html>