[PATCH] Nuke another 21 .plt slots

[Ulrich Drepper]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roland McGrath wrote:

> I don't think it is so unreasonable.

What exactly?  That gcc by default is generating code with different 
semantics based on the optimization level?

 > Anything that is written so that it
> 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.

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?

- -- 
- ---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE9T3d62ijCOnn/RHQRAsxlAKChbETqVF7MiHubYxzSugqU8nJ8RACeIunj
3no+m3gkdxDOKdinWmUQYks=
=xmoz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----