This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [rfc] Whole program optimization
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:00:16 +0200
- Subject: Re: [rfc] Whole program optimization
- References: <20050525232400.GC18902@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <m2oeaxe8zq.fsf@greed.local> <20050527202348.GA15079@redhat.com> <20050531233126.GG4419@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20050601033823.GA5695@redhat.com>
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:31:26AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > It breaks two testcases however:
> >
> > g++.dg/ext/visibility/pragma-override1.C scan-assembler \\\\.internal.*Foo.methodEv
> > g++.dg/ext/visibility/pragma-override2.C scan-assembler \\\\.internal.*Foo.methodEv
> >
> > Since these are emitted as statics now. I am not quite sure if we want
> > to restore them somehow.
>
> Yes, I hadn't intended for you to obscond with a real ELF symbol
> feature.
I've expected so but that seemed what discussion with you and Geoff
ended up :) OK, so if we don't want to make the symbols really static
on ELF systems, we might either invent -fvisibility=static flag for this
particular thing, or make -fvisibility=internal stay what it is doing
currently on ELF targets, make it to do what is does in my patch for
non-ELF targets and we would have to update all !TREE_PUBLIC checks in
the backend by cgraph_node (decl)->externally_visible check. With the
second method I am a bit affraid of posibilities that non-ELF targets
will break without noticing when testing on ELF, but I am fine with it
as well.
Honza
>
>
>
> r~