--- Comment #13 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-26 18:39
---
It also causes bootstrap failures (see PR18058)
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-26 18:43
---
(In reply to comment #13)
It also causes bootstrap failures (see PR18058)
Can you try bootstrapping with a newer GCC as that problem should have been
fixed (though the orginally problem in that bug still remains
--- Comment #12 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-05-10 22:54 ---
I believe the patch checked in for this defect is causing
g++.old-deja/g++.other/static14.C and
g++.old-deja/g++.other/static20.C to fail.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-09 19:19
---
Fixed in mainline by patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00315.html
(I got the PR number wrong, sorry).
It fixes the functions only, variables still can be optimized out. Do we wish
to do the same
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-30 13:56 ---
Concerning the comments, unit-at-a-time is not optimization, it is just way
overall compilation is driven.
I don't quite see reason for outputting unneeded static functions even at -O0
that it mostly just slows down
--- Comment #10 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-30 16:50 ---
Subject: Re: no static definition at -O0
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I don't quite see reason for outputting unneeded static functions even at -O0
that it mostly just slows down the compilation
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 01:59 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
