https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70945
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> --- On Fri, 13 May 2016, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > We could get rid of this heuristic (the property function_glibc_finite_math in > combination with matching declarations' names) if the target compiler's early > code transformation stages would accurately "describe" what they're doing, but > that sounds like having to add some special/new "attributes" to glibc's > <bits/math-finite.h>, which sounds more complicated. I think the heuristic is > safe enough; symbol names prefixed with an underscore are in the > implementation > namespace. Even aside from offloading, there is a clear use for extensions to give better control over assembler names for different variants of functions: the libmvec issues where the vector function variants are not in one-to-one correspondence with the scalar function variants.
