This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Merging identical functions in GCC

From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: "Joe Buck" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
Cc: "Laurent GUERBY" <laurent at guerby dot net>, "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant at google dot com>, "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "Michael Popov" <pmike2001 at mail dot ru>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:02:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Merging identical functions in GCC
References: <450A8B7F.6050100@mail.ru> <571f6b510609150542h254b37cjc8ccc5ecafec2b6f@mail.gmail.com> <m3ejudjdsb.fsf@dhcp-172-18-108-229.corp.google.com> <1158345740.5201.38.camel@pc1> <4aca3dc20609151146i5ee1fd87xd536d0b7026e9167@mail.gmail.com> <20060915202001.GA31210@synopsys.com>

It seems to me that most candidates for merging that could be
eliminated by this approach are of the form

std::container<PodT>::some_method(...)


Actually, even for non-POD types, it catches a lot of templatized
member functions that mainly depend on size (but they are still
container classes).

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Merging identical functions in GCC
  - From: Michael Popov

References:
- Merging identical functions in GCC
  - From: Michael Popov
- Re: Merging identical functions in GCC
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: Merging identical functions in GCC
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Merging identical functions in GCC
  - From: Laurent GUERBY
- Re: Merging identical functions in GCC
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: Merging identical functions in GCC
  - From: Joe Buck

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