From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4683 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 15:00:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4670 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 15:00:44 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030730150044.4668.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "jh at suse dot cz" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030220055600.9767.bkoz@redhat.com> References: <20030220055600.9767.bkoz@redhat.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/9767] explicit instantiation of class members unoptimized? X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg03565.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9767 ------- Additional Comments From jh at suse dot cz 2003-07-30 15:00 ------- Subject: Re: explicit instantiation of class members unoptimized? > PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9767 > > > > ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2003-07-29 22:15 ------- > It is fixed with -funit-at-a-time in c++. Should we close this, now it is fixed with -funit-at-a- > time? I would guess so. Or you can assign it to me and we can wait until -funit-at-a-time become default in case this won't take forever. Honza > > > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.