This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?

From: Rafael Espindola <espindola at google dot com>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
Cc: Doug Kwan (éæå) <dougkwan at google dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:04:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
References: <498552560811140139n64a950a4gc22864fa102975ea@mail.gmail.com> <38a0d8450811140159m4849c086sa671f91c0bc87a2a@mail.gmail.com> <b798aad50811140503p1af614c2o34936188d5411827@mail.gmail.com>

> That was the first thing I tried.  It may be possible.  It currently
> creates other problems as BINFO is assumed to exist and is used by the
> folder.  It may be a matter of fixing the folder, as I'm not convinced
> that BINFO is really necessary, but I haven't asked the C++ folks
> about it.

Just removing the decls without body from it should be enough for this bug, no?

>
> Diego.
>

Cheers,
-- 
Rafael Avila de Espindola

Google | Gordon House | Barrow Street | Dublin 4 | Ireland
Registered in Dublin, Ireland | Registration Number: 368047

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: =?big5?b?RG91ZyBLd2FuICjD9q62vHcp?=

References:
- [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: =?big5?b?RG91ZyBLd2FuICjD9q62vHcp?=
- Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: Rafael Espindola
- Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: Diego Novillo

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