From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-351105-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7918 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2011 12:16:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 7879 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Mar 2011 12:16:00 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:15:55 +0000
From: "ro at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/47334] g++.dg/torture/pr31863.C -O2 -flto FAILs without visibility
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: lto
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Last reconfirmed CC Target Milestone Ever Confirmed
Message-ID: <bug-47334-4-1KBCFM6VDc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47334-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47334-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:58:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg02418.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47334

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2011.03.23 12:15:19
                 CC|                            |dnovillo at google dot com,
                   |                            |rguenther at suse dot de
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.7.0
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-23 12:15:19 UTC ---
While I'm considering how to apply the prunes from lto.exp (lto_prune_warns) to
tests not yet using lto.exp, I've got a more fundamental question: what's the
point of trying to use visibility support on targets that don't support that
and
later pruning the resulting warning?  It seems far more sensible to me not to
try
this in the first place and thus avoid the resulting mess.