This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
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? 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. Jakub
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |