http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2012-02-16 20:01:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-16
> 15:55:04 UTC ---
> First and foremost, sorry for the big delay but I could not have a
> look at this PR earlier. Nevertheless, I doubt that the decision of
No worries, the other replies already pushed me in the right direction.
> the new IPA-CP not to clone the function in question can be called a
> bug. Yes, if the heuristics or other early optimizations results
> change, the cloning decision might change again in the future - even
> in between minor versions if we are really unlucky.
Thanks. This just means we have to be extra careful with symbol
versioning. Handling PR libstdc++/52191 would certainly help quite a
bit, and other versions runtime libs don't use much (if any) wildcards
in their version maps, so won't be easily affected.
Rainer
