public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/39242] [4.4 Regression] Inconsistent reject / accept of code
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:59:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090219145919.22957.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-39242-10053@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #7 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-02-19 14:59 -------
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Inconsistent reject / accept of code
> Index: cp/pt.c
> ===================================================================
> --- cp/pt.c (revision 144292)
> +++ cp/pt.c (working copy)
> @@ -15285,7 +15285,7 @@ instantiate_decl (tree d, int defer_ok,
> /* ... but we instantiate inline functions so that we can inline
> them and ... */
> && ! (TREE_CODE (d) == FUNCTION_DECL
> - && possibly_inlined_p (d))
> + && DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (d))
this way we will lose inlining opurtunities at -O3, sine we will never
instantiate methods not declared inline.
Is standard really making difference in between inline and !inline here?
Or we are just supposed to suppress the errors and instantiate only
stuff that is complette or are we supposed to give error at -O0 too or
is it up to our choice?
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39242
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-19 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-19 13:38 [Bug c++/39242] New: " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 13:40 ` [Bug c++/39242] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 13:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 13:46 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 13:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 14:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 14:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 14:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 14:59 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz [this message]
2009-02-19 15:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 15:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2009-02-19 16:41 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
2009-02-19 16:55 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-02-19 16:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 17:39 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-20 14:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2009-02-21 12:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-21 13:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-24 14:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-24 14:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090219145919.22957.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).