Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:44:33PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Wait - this seems to be produced even with the current glibc without my 
>> changes (glibc compiled by GCC 3.3):
>> nm /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 |grep elf_machine_rela
>> 0000000000000d40 t elf_machine_rela.0
>> 0000000000007fa0 t elf_machine_rela.0
>> 000000000000d010 t elf_machine_rela.0
>> 0000000000000d70 t elf_machine_rela_relative.1
>> 0000000000008330 t elf_machine_rela_relative.1
>> 
>> For reference, compile:
>> int
>> test (int j)
>> {
>>   
>> static  inline int
>>     __attribute__ ((always_inline))
>>     test_inline (int i)
>>     {
>>       return i++;
>>     }
>>   
>>   return test_inline (j);
>> }
>> 
>> I get with GCC 3.3:
>> gromit:/tmp:[0]$ gcc -Wall -c t.c -O2
>> gromit:/tmp:[0]$ nm t.o
>> 0000000000000010 T test
>> 0000000000000000 t test_inline.0
>
> You mean hammer branch GCC 3.3, right?

Yes, I do.

> Stock 3.3 should be ok.  GCC 3.4 initially also emitted successfully inlined
> nested functions as separate functions too, but this was fixed in July this
> year, see PR middle-end/15345, c/16450.

That explains 3.4.  But why do I get these also with GCC 3.5 with my
patch (nm elf/dl-reloc.o):

00000000000002a0 t elf_machine_lazy_rel.7373
00000000000002f0 t elf_machine_rela.7361
0000000000000110 t elf_machine_rela_relative.7369

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SUSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126