http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-20 11:38:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > First and foremost, sorry for the big delay but I could not have a > look at this PR earlier. Nevertheless, I doubt that the decision of > the new IPA-CP not to clone the function in question can be called a > bug. Yes, if the heuristics or other early optimizations results > change, the cloning decision might change again in the future - even > in between minor versions if we are really unlucky. Can/do we mark all clones having hidden visibility? Would a matching regexp in the linker script override that? Isn't that a bug?
