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] |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roland McGrath wrote:
What exactly? That gcc by default is generating code with different semantics based on the optimization level?I don't think it is so unreasonable.
I have no problem with this being possible. But the user must tell the compiler to do so. There is a lot of code out there which depends on interposition being possible. All optimizations default on the safe side, why not this one as well?would work with static linking would work will come out right (i.e. you can only inline in the same module and it would be a multiple definition if there were a competing definition elsewhere), except for special cases defining weak functions.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |