From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3267 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2004 17:22:55 -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 3227 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2004 17:22:53 -0000 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040203172253.3226.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040120110040.13768.igodard@pacbell.net> References: <20040120110040.13768.igodard@pacbell.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/13768] [3.4/3.5 Regression] -funit-at-a-time compiles unused inline function X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-02-03 17:22 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 Regression] -funit-at-a-time compiles unused inline function >Actually looking deeper into this specific testcase, I believe that if >the source program was correct, unit-at-a-time would emit empty file >too, since there is no entry point from where the call in question can >be reached, so it just builds the program representation in memory prior >optimizing it. >This is because of your request to change C++ frontend that way (my >initial patch didn't force instantiation of all TREE_USED templates). > >I think this is correct thing - GCC should error out on this testcase. >Why it is considered a bug at first place? > > If the vtable will not actually be emitted to the object file, then this is not a bug, and you can close it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13768