This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug c++/24561] no static definition



------- 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 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.

I understand it's a change.  That's different from saying it's a regression.

>>However, I tend to agree that it would be better if they did stay around at
>>-O0.  In other words, I wouldn't be opposed to adding such a guarantee.
>>Do we know if this is a front-end problem or a cgraph problem? 
>
> cgraph is throwing things away when unit-at-a-time is enabled which is all the
> time with C++ in 4.0 and above.

Then, this bug should be changed to be a middle-end bug.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24561


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]