[Bug lto/47334] g++.dg/torture/pr31863.C -O2 -flto FAILs without visibility

["rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47334

--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-03-23 12:20:39 UTC ---
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47334
> 
> Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
>    Last reconfirmed|                            |2011.03.23 12:15:19
>                  CC|                            |dnovillo at google dot com,
>                    |                            |rguenther at suse dot de
>    Target Milestone|---                         |4.7.0
>      Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
> 
> --- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-23 12:15:19 UTC ---
> While I'm considering how to apply the prunes from lto.exp (lto_prune_warns) to
> tests not yet using lto.exp, I've got a more fundamental question: what's the
> point of trying to use visibility support on targets that don't support that
> and
> later pruning the resulting warning?  It seems far more sensible to me not to
> try
> this in the first place and thus avoid the resulting mess.

Of course.