http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47334
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-03-23 12:20:39 UTC --- On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47334 > > Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW > Last reconfirmed| |2011.03.23 12:15:19 > CC| |dnovillo at google dot com, > | |rguenther at suse dot de > Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 > Ever Confirmed|0 |1 > > --- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-23 12:15:19 > UTC --- > While I'm considering how to apply the prunes from lto.exp (lto_prune_warns) > to > tests not yet using lto.exp, I've got a more fundamental question: what's the > point of trying to use visibility support on targets that don't support that > and > later pruning the resulting warning? It seems far more sensible to me not to > try > this in the first place and thus avoid the resulting mess. Of course.
