Daniel Berlin wrote:
Actually, even for non-POD types, it catches a lot of templatized
member functions that mainly depend on size (but they are still
container classes).
Just another ( maybe stupid :-) ) idea. What about "partial merge"?
static int x = 0;
void a()
{
printf( "aaa" );
x
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Anyhow, I think that a combination of compiler/linker help and
programmer help are useful. There are some cases where you can do this
automatically, and others where you might need programmer help. Just as
-ffast-math is useful, so might -fmerge-functions or
__attribute_
Daniel Berlin wrote:
There are of course, collisions possible in the hash, and in the
absolute worst case, it is possible to end up with no warning but
wrong results. In particular, if you get a collision and the length
of the functions happens to be the same, i don't believe the linker
will com
Steven Bosscher wrote:
Isn't this what you describe here the same as COMDAT?
Well, MS VC have an option "enable COMDAT folding" - which
turns ON merging of identical functions.
BTW, this is linker option... should it be addressed to GCC's LTO?
I'm not sure if function body is equivalent to "COM
Hello!
There is very good blog post about the problem:
http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com/2005/03/duplicate-function-bodies.html
A couple of days ago I've learned that the Microsoft linker can merge
functions with binary identical bodies. Looks rather good idea,
> especially with templates, and
