------- Additional Comments From matz at suse dot de 2005-04-28 09:24 ------- Yes, I determined that already in the initial report; to cite myself: > It's invalid for two reasons I think, first the missing definition, instead > of the declaration. [the second reason being the use of the GNU extension]. But it can be trivially made valid (just provide a definition), and I assumed this to be done for sake of this bugreport. Using the GNU extension this would then be valid, and _then_ the value is still not propagated to the method body. _That_'s what I'm complaining about, the missed optimization.
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21089
