From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27115 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2009 17:39:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 27071 invoked by uid 48); 19 Feb 2009 17:39:04 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090219173904.27070.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/39242] [4.4 Regression] Inconsistent reject / accept of code In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jason at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg01746.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #12 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-19 17:39 ------- (In reply to comment #10) > What that means is that we *must not* implicitly instantiate things > declared "extern template" unless they are DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P. As a > consequence, at -O3, we cannot implicitly instantiate non-inline "extern > template" functions. I'm not entirely sure that's what we want it to say, but it does seem like a reasonable expectation for users to have. Beyond this issue, what is the compile speed impact of the earlier change to use possibly_inlined_p? It seems like it might be making us speculatively instantiate a lot more functions for potential inlining even at -O1, which I would expect to cause memory bloat and slower compilation. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39242