------- Comment #5 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-28 00:50 ------- Subject: Re: no static definition
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-28 00:24 > ------- > (In reply to comment #3) > >>I wouldn't call this a regression; I don't think there's any guarantee that >>unused statics stay around, even with -O0. > > It is a regression as turning on unit-at-a-time at -O0 changed it. I understand it's a change. That's different from saying it's a regression. >>However, I tend to agree that it would be better if they did stay around at >>-O0. In other words, I wouldn't be opposed to adding such a guarantee. >>Do we know if this is a front-end problem or a cgraph problem? > > cgraph is throwing things away when unit-at-a-time is enabled which is all the > time with C++ in 4.0 and above. Then, this bug should be changed to be a middle-end bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24561
