https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119666
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |wrong-code
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The reporter thinks this is wrong-code.
The C frontend rejects an extern const initialized object but handles the
following not to the reporters expectations, optimizing it to return 4
(GCC 7 worked):
const int __attribute__((weak)) x = 4;
int foo() { return x; }
I think a weak definition should only be replaceable with a semantically
equivalent strong definition. Note I think we have testcases that verify
we do not inline weak function definitions.
