This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-profiling-branch PATCH IPCP extensions + Function cloning
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- To: Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA at il dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Ayal Zaks <ZAKS at il dot ibm dot com>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, hubicka at ucw dot cz, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Mircea Namolaru <NAMOLARU at il dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:18:33 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [tree-profiling-branch PATCH IPCP extensions + Function cloning
- Organization: SuSE Linux AG
- References: <OF8DE08550.21DF4A86-ONC2256F8C.0035CD53-C2256F8C.003632B5@il.ibm.com>
On Jan 17, 2005 11:02 AM, Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA@il.ibm.com> wrote:
> > What makes templates so special so you want to avoid the versioning
> > here?
> Many libstdc++ tests failed when we versioned templates.
> I'll continue to investigate this, in the meantime I want to avoid it.
Strange. What do we know about templates at this point?
I would expect that templates do not exist as far as the call
graph is concerned... Templates are front-end business, and
cloning is part of the middle-end. If you end up attempting
to clone a template, something somewhere is badly broken.
What does the backtrace of the failure look like?