https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #13 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> Result pure looping 0
> Function found to be pure: foo/4
This is good - we are supposed to find it to be pure and walk all
aliases and update noninterposable ones
> Declaration updated to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #11)
> Are you sure? If pure/const discovery is no longer applied to weak
> definitions, it shouldn't be able to propagate to a non-inlined caller. Of
> course the fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #11 from Rich Felker ---
Are you sure? If pure/const discovery is no longer applied to weak definitions,
it shouldn't be able to propagate to a non-inlined caller. Of course the fix
may be incomplete or not working, which I guess we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
As comment #5 mentioned, it is still broken, you just need -fno-inline in
addition to -O2 for the original testcase. Andrew's remark is quite useful for
situations like this, you know :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #9 from Rich Felker ---
Can you provide a link to the commit that might have fixed it? I imagine it's
simple enough to backport, in which case I'd like to do so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> > Do weak aliases fall under some implicit ODR here?
>
> The whole definition of "weak" is that it entitles you to make a definition
> that will be exempt from ODR, where a non-weak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #7 from Rich Felker ---
> Do weak aliases fall under some implicit ODR here?
The whole definition of "weak" is that it entitles you to make a definition
that will be exempt from ODR, where a non-weak definition, if any, replaces it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Honza? What's your stance here? Do weak aliases fall under some implicit ODR
here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95558
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.7.1
Known to work|
10 matches
Mail list logo