This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] optimization/6323
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gwenole Beauchesne <gbeauchesne at mandrakesoft dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "jason at redhat dot com" <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:07:00 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] optimization/6323
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204162157220.7021-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
> Rather than track down the exact DECL field that needs to be preserved
> and/or erased between newdecl and olddecl, I took the cleaner approach
> of just giving up attempting to re-use the original DECL in these rare
> cases.
That can't be right; we really don't want multiple DECLs for the same
function floating around. We should find the field and clear it.
But, this bug report looks a lot like PR6352 -- and the patch I'm testing
there seems to fix it.
> Tested against the 3.1 branch with "make bootstrap" and "make -k check"
> on i686-pc-linux-gnu, using all languages except ada, with no new
> regressions. I've placed the new test case in g++.old-deja/g++.other
> with all of the existing C++ builtin tests, these should all be moved
> to the new dg framework eventually, but that's a task for another day
> [and hopefully for someone else :>]
You really should create .dg tests now. It's not hard. :-)
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com