public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "nikolasklauser at berlin dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/110000] GCC should implement exclude_from_explicit_instantiation
Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 14:31:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-110000-4-mgQKaHhYiD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-110000-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110000

--- Comment #8 from Nikolas Klauser <nikolasklauser at berlin dot de> ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7)
> (In reply to Nikolas Klauser from comment #6)
> > Does that make sense?
> 
> Not quite. I was trying to suggest that you also need to suppress all
> inter-procedural analysis. This will inhibit quite a few useful
> optimizations.

Why would you need to do that? As long as any functions that are part of the
ABI don't change in a non-benign way, everything is fine. If an
implementation-detail function doesn't get inlined, but the public function
does, it's fine because the detail function gets emitted by every TU that uses
it, which means that it'll always be there as long as some function relies on
the symbol. If the implementation-detail function gets inlined, the code will
obviously be there - no need to have a symbol anywhere.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-05-28 14:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-26 20:25 [Bug c++/110000] New: " nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
2023-05-26 20:31 ` [Bug c++/110000] " ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
2023-05-26 20:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-26 20:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-26 20:42 ` nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
2023-05-27 10:39 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-27 23:40 ` nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
2023-05-28  6:13 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-28 14:31 ` nikolasklauser at berlin dot de [this message]
2023-05-31 15:40 ` ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
2023-05-31 16:48 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-31 16:52 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-31 17:33 ` nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
2023-06-01 18:00 ` ldionne.2 at gmail dot com

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=bug-110000-4-mgQKaHhYiD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --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).