https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #8 from Krisztian Kocsis krisztian.kocsis at optimaster dot eu ---
Hi!
In the meanwhile I'v successfully compiled uClibc 0.9.33.2 with LTO.
It required to patch only a few (2-3) lines to mark these sections as used.
We are running
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
Carlos O'Donell carlos at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #4 from Krisztian Kocsis krisztian.kocsis at optimaster dot eu
2012-04-16 12:07:19 UTC ---
If it is treated as a user error than a warning should be printed because this
changes the behavior of what is dropped and what is not. People
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-04-16 13:50:35 UTC
---
How common is this construction in practice? Adding a warning or making GCC to
imply used attribute is same amount of work - it means teaching GCC about those
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #6 from Krisztian Kocsis krisztian.kocsis at optimaster dot eu
2012-04-16 14:35:37 UTC ---
I currently know that glibc uses it but don't know who else use it.
In my projects I always use constructor/destructor attributes because with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-19
15:35:28 UTC ---
I would incline to declare this an user error. GCC does not control the meaning
of all of the user specified sections and thus I would say that user is either
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
