http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-02 16:42:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > Ah, the reason for writting reply was primarily the observation that > > enforcing > > partitioning based on origin of asm statement won't fly with crossmoudle > > inlining, so I think it is quite useless complication of the whole thing. > > Well, with a used global local decl I would just leave the unit alone, > doing a 1:1 partition for it (not mangling it). That way we can even > handle multiple conflicting used declared statics ... > > Of course that's the same end-result as if the user would compile the > unit without -flto. > > Not sure if it's worth going that way though. > > > Also the not mangling unless we hit conflict probably should be implemented > > in a way that when conflict exists all static of same name are renamed, so > > asm statements won't compile rather that end up referring random other > > variable. > > Yes (assuming people forgot to annotate vars with attribute((used))). Of course if there is a conflict with a global (non-local) decl then the asm will bogously pick that up. So either way isn't bullet-proof. Richard.
