Thanks for fixing this. Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> writes: >> I would preffer the renaming excercise, since the name confused me few times, >> too and the other predicate would be useful for IPA code :) > > before invoking sed, can we agree on the right names? I propose > > * renaming 'binds_local_p' to 'binds_module_p' (and any default > implementations > etc likewise). Keeps the semantics of returning true if the symbol is known > to > bind in the dynamic object or executable the current object file ends up in. > > * a new function or hook 'binds_here_p' (and any default implementations > needed). Returns true if the symbol is known to bind in the object file > being > emitted by the current compilation. > > 'here's not the best name, but sadly 'object' is overloaded and could mean > the > object being queried or the object file being emitted. Similarly > 'translation > unit' is too restrictive in LTO mode, where multiple TUs are in play. I'm > open > to a better name. > > Clearly these are related in that binds_here_p returning true implies > binds_module_p being true, and binds_module_p returning false implies > binds_here_p being false. > > Because of how gcc's currently structured the implementation of that new hook > would be > if (binds_local_p () && !WEAK ()) return true; > > * finally change default_use_anchors_p to use the new hook. > > thoughts?
Not really a useful answer, but sometimes if everyone agrees you get no replies, so: sounds great to me FWIW, including the "here" thing. Richard
