From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24267 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2002 04:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24254 invoked by uid 71); 7 Aug 2002 04:26:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020807042601.24253.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: geoffk@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: optimization/7515: invalid inlining Reply-To: Ulrich Drepper X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/7515; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ulrich Drepper To: Geoff Keating Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/7515: invalid inlining Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:17:05 -0700 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Geoff Keating wrote: > This is not a bug unless -fpic is used, since executables themselves > will not have any symbols overriden, correct? This assumes clueful programmers. Often code for DSO are compiled without -fpic. Sometimes it gets forgotten. Other times people believe the "PIC register prevents optimization" myth. The text relocations DSOs and up with having often go completely unnoticed. So, no, -fpic is no prerequisite for this being a bug. - -- - ---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE9UJ9H2ijCOnn/RHQRAiJwAKCgut+4fC4Zoq3VUC2a/knlBz/pRACggv8B gg0/a/wOdwawFNE4IOxUseg= =Mdrw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----