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] |
> The problem is not loss of optimization. The semantics f code gets > changed. And incorrectly so. gcc cannot inline a non-static function > unless its visibility != default. It might be possible to add a gcc > option to signal that all functions can be assumed to be non-preemptible. I don't think it is so unreasonable. 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.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |