--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-26 18:43
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> It also causes bootstrap failures (see PR18058)
Can you try bootstrapping with a newer GCC as that problem should have been
fixed (though the orginally problem in that bug still remains
--- Comment #13 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-26 18:39
---
It also causes bootstrap failures (see PR18058)
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-05-10 22:54 ---
I believe the patch checked in for this defect is causing
g++.old-deja/g++.other/static14.C and
g++.old-deja/g++.other/static20.C to fail.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-09 19:19
---
Fixed in mainline by patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00315.html
(I got the PR number wrong, sorry).
It fixes the functions only, variables still can be optimized out. Do we wish
to do the same
--- Comment #10 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-30 16:50 ---
Subject: Re: no static definition at -O0
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I don't quite see reason for outputting unneeded static functions even at -O0
> that it mostly just slows down the compilation proces
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-30 13:56 ---
Concerning the comments, unit-at-a-time is not optimization, it is just way
overall compilation is driven.
I don't quite see reason for outputting unneeded static functions even at -O0
that it mostly just slows down
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 01:59 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #7 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-28 02:16 ---
Subject: Re: no static definition
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Not really as unit at a time is considered an optimization and the C++
> front-end just turns it on always.
I don't think that's accurate.
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-28 01:34 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I understand it's a change. That's different from saying it's a regression.
It was an unexpected change really at least as far as I can tell
> Then, this bug should be changed to be a mid
--- Comment #5 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-28 00:50 ---
Subject: Re: no static definition
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-28 00:24
> ---
> (In reply to comment #3)
>
>>I wouldn't call this a reg
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-28 00:24 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I wouldn't call this a regression; I don't think there's any guarantee that
> unused statics stay around, even with -O0.
It is a regression as turning on unit-at-a-time at -O0 changed it
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-28 00:11
---
I wouldn't call this a regression; I don't think there's any guarantee that
unused statics stay around, even with -O0.
However, I tend to agree that it would be better if they did stay around at
-O0. In other w
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-27 23:58 ---
I don't know if this is really can be considered a bug as the static defintions
are unused. If you want to keep them, you have to use the attribute used. But
I will let someone else (Mark?) to decide.
--
pinski
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-27 23:56 ---
This is because unit at a time is turned on by default.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
14 matches
Mail list logo
