From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 694423858D38; Sun, 28 May 2023 14:31:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 694423858D38
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685284268;
	bh=5/h6lKsMg3KlGb2eUdN0VMfc6e+TThCKQa7Z78a75Ps=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=PZxL9U2+e8WFu/1UEmmdVUmlYIOvnIoSRyyfb27Wxzg/pN1N2EFF4MaI23tVHfTai
	 GQQu7vVuZUEdeDzy5m+Ng0uXamCxVDJTgvCfhSZ9j+Ha3+JvLBGPkos08OsBvxaTAU
	 e1CNFpeFxGmiXMvVkADTkvBMPaLMfAPUFurav+qo=
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
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: nikolasklauser at berlin dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110000-4-mgQKaHhYiD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110000-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110000-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110000

--- 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?
>=20
> 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 u=
ses
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 wi=
ll
obviously be there - no need to have a symbol anywhere.=