https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #13 from Louis Dionne ---
Nikolas already answered some, but just to expand on this:
> But on the topic of this enhancement request, I don't see why functions
> should be excluded from explicit instantiation if they're already abi-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #12 from Nikolas Klauser ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> Using always_inline on everything is simply wrong: GCC will refuse to inline
> some functions and the user gets an error that they cannot avoid. There's no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> Do you want to be able to change these functions in
> ABI-incompatible ways between major revisions of the library?
Sorry, that was unclear, I meant to as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #10 from Jona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #9 from Louis Dionne ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I am getting a feeling this attribute is well defined enough.
>
> Is it really just supposed to block explicit instantiation of templates?
> Is there a decent se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #8 from Nikolas Klauser ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7)
> (In reply to Nikolas Klauser from comment #6)
> > Does that make sense?
>
> Not quite. I was trying to suggest that you also need to suppress all
> inter-pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #7 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Nikolas Klauser from comment #6)
> Does that make sense?
Not quite. I was trying to suggest that you also need to suppress all
inter-procedural analysis. This will inhibit quite a few useful o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #6 from Nikolas Klauser ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #5)
> How hard is this to use in practice? With current Clang, this:
>
> “
> template
> class S {
> __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden"),
> exclude_from_explic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #4 from Nikolas Klauser ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I am getting a feeling this attribute is well defined enough.
>
> Is it really just supposed to block explicit instantiation of templates?
> Is there a decent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am getting a feeling this attribute is well defined enough.
Is it really just supposed to block explicit instantiation of templates?
Is there a decent set of testcases that can be used to match up the
imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am trying to understand the exact details here?
https://releases.llvm.org/9.0.0/tools/clang/docs/AttributeReference.html#exclude-from-explicit-instantiation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11
Louis Dionne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
13 matches
Mail list logo
