https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jengelh at inai dot de
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #13 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> ?? That is the task for the linker SHF_MERGE|SHF_STRINGS handling.
> Why should gcc duplicate that?
Because gcc would benefit from knowing if merging makes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #12 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> (In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #9)
> > gcc already totally misses optimizations here where one string is a suffix
> > of another. "mii" could just be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> ?? That is the task for the linker SHF_MERGE|SHF_STRINGS handling.
> Why should gcc duplicate that?
I suppose there would be small room for improvements where GCC could use the
fact that one string's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #9)
> gcc already totally misses optimizations here where one string is a suffix
> of another. "mii" could just be a pointer to the 3rd byte of "sgmii", but
> we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
>
> H.J. Lu changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
