--- Comment #9 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-16 18:55 ---
Fixed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01069.html
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-10 18:25
---
Your solution seems to be somewhat complex though. Can't we get away with
an iterative propagation algorithm for the DECL_NO_STATIC_CHAIN flag?
Yes, but it is less efficient: in the worst case the number of
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-21 09:31
---
If I understand right the two patches do different things. Consider
the following example:
void X(void) {
void D(void) { D(); };
D();
}
The nested function is reachable, so
--- Comment #2 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-15 14:49
---
Created an attachment (id=13208)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13208action=view)
Proposed fix
Bootstraps with all languages including Ada. Does not introduce any new
testsuite failures. I'd
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-15 15:12
---
Bootstraps with all languages including Ada. Does not introduce any new
testsuite failures. I'd appreciate it if the ACT people could pass it
through their regression test suite. I don't know if this
--- Comment #4 from baldrick at free dot fr 2007-03-15 15:16 ---
Subject: Re: tree-nested creates pointless static chains and trampolines when
the callgraph is non-trivial
Bootstraps with all languages including Ada. Does not introduce any new
testsuite failures. I'd appreciate
--- Comment #5 from baldrick at free dot fr 2007-03-15 15:34 ---
Subject: Re: tree-nested creates pointless static chains and trampolines when
the callgraph is non-trivial
Bootstraps with all languages including Ada. Does not introduce any new
testsuite failures. I'd appreciate
--- Comment #6 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-15 19:45
---
(In reply to comment #1)
Try this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01201.html
I don't think you need to consider FDESC_EXPR when constructing
the callgraph. It seems only to be used for vtables;
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 17:40
---
Try this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01201.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
