This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR optimization/12324
- From: Bernardo Innocenti <bernie at develer dot com>
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:29:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR optimization/12324
- Organization: Develer S.r.l.
- References: <20030927135507.GG23075@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030927183054.GA25269@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <3F7D2FEC.email@example.com> <20031003190935.GB20653@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Jan Hubicka wrote:
I've submitted this PR. The attached test case is a simplified case of
a real case from linux/drivers/net/fec.c:
I do understand the problem you have. What I don't follow however is
why the function needs to be deferred. It seems to me that it will be
output anyway as long as it is referenced but I may be wrong (this is
all bit nasty), so I would like to understand it better.
Those functions get stripped away from the output as long as you either
remove the static qualifier, reference them directly or compile without
I see we got suck here somewhat,
I will try to search for archives first on why that line got in at first
cvs annotate -> ChangeLog -> gcc-patches
This path might lead to the truth ;-)
// Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
Please don't send Word attachments - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html