From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-384006-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2332 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2012 11:39:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 2317 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2012 11:39:38 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 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; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:38:44 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/52188] [4.7 regression] IPA-CP change broke libstdc++ symbol versioning on Solaris
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:46:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: major
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-52188-4-592mniXlcz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52188-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52188-4@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
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: 2012-02/txt/msg01940.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188

--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-20 11:38:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> First and foremost, sorry for the big delay but I could not have a
> look at this PR earlier.  Nevertheless, I doubt that the decision of
> the new IPA-CP not to clone the function in question can be called a
> bug.  Yes, if the heuristics or other early optimizations results
> change, the cloning decision might change again in the future - even
> in between minor versions if we are really unlucky.

Can/do we mark all clones having hidden visibility?  Would a matching regexp
in the linker script override that?  Isn't that a bug?