This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/42110] [4.5 Regression] ICE with inlining
- From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 8 Dec 2009 15:57:19 -0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/42110] [4.5 Regression] ICE with inlining
- References: <bug-42110-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 15:57 -------
So we have new direct call appearing to function that has been previously
eliminated as unreachable (after inlining) as a result of devirtualization?
In general if function have address taken, we should not remove it since it is
needed, or is that the special vtable handling?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42110