From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22166 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2012 22:13:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 22134 invoked by uid 48); 18 Nov 2012 22:13:24 -0000 From: "m101010a at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/55319] Using -fwhole-program inhibits optimization Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 22:13:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: m101010a at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg01683.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55319 --- Comment #2 from m101010a at gmail dot com 2012-11-18 22:13:23 UTC --- Actually, it does depend on IO; the optimizations aren't performed in either case if I declare but don't define putchar, and if do something simple like assigning to a volatile int in putchar then the optimizations are performed in both cases. If I assert(false) in putchar, gcc optimizes the fwhole-program version to a failed assert, but doesn't without fwhole-program, which is the opposite of what it does with IO.