From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13120 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2009 18:29:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 13106 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2009 18:29:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.144) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:29:37 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 13so570382eye.46 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:29:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.23.89 with SMTP id q25mr3511050ebb.65.1259951375359; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:29:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm5746216eyx.14.2009.12.04.10.29.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:29:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B1958CF.1030202@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:46:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Jelinek CC: Dave Korn , Jason Merrill , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] Optimize C++ comdat ctors/dtors in classes without virtual bases (PR c++/3187, take 5) References: <20091130223653.GO22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> <20091201094652.GQ22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> <20091201192247.GT22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> <4B157EE4.3010208@gmail.com> <4B195605.60804@gmail.com> <20091204182132.GJ22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20091204182132.GJ22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 06:33:41PM +0000, Dave Korn wrote: >> I assumed it was, but for reasons stated elsewhere it wasn't practical to >> run with full checking on so I tested it unchecked; nothing untoward happened. > > I think cygwin doesn't HAVE_COMDAT_GROUP anyway, so it wouldn't make any > difference. Heh, you're right. I was worrying for nothing(*). cheers, DaveK -- (*) - Well, not quite for nothing, I was worrying because /something/ recently caused some kind of breakage in that area somewhere between r.154010 and r.154114, and although it got fixed again within the week I thought I'd do some proactive keeping-an-eye-out-for-problems-before-they-arise.