minor bug: pointers to static member functions that otherwise inline

[David Schwartz]

    I've run into some problems with code that passes around pointers to
static member functions. What happens is, if the only way the function is
'used' is by taking a pointer to it, the compiler doesn't actually generate
the code for that function. This forces me to add -fkeep-inline-functions to
avoid a crash. Is this behavior correct?

    Here's example code off the top of my head (but it may be too simple to
produce the bug):

class foo
{
 public:
 int a;
 foo() { a=0; }
 static void inc(void *j)
 {
  foo *b=(foo *)j;
  b->a++;
 }
};

void runner(void (*foo)(void *), void *param)
{
 foo(param);
}

int main(void)
{
 foo g;
 runner(foo::inc, (void *)&g);
 return 0;
}

    When I compile this without -fkeep-inline-functions, foo::inc gets
optimized out even though an address that claims to be for that function
gets passed to runner. If I take the address of a function, shouldn't the
compiler consider that an instance it can't inline?

    (Please reply by email as well if possible. Thanks.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
http://www.gate.net/~djls