https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On August 8, 2019 10:27:38 AM GMT+02:00, "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287 > >rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > >--- Comment #35 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot >gnu.org> --- >I might be missing the point, but tying this decision to internal >functions seems conceptually wrong. The main distinguishing >feature of internal functions is that they're purely compiler- >internal and have no linkage. It seems odd to use them to decide >whether a built-in function actually does have linkage. ;-) Yes indeed. Fact is we do not have the information whether a builtin has linkage or not readily available. >E.g. we only really have an internal function for things like >atan2 because of (the rarely used?) -mfancy-math-387. We should >be free to remove the internal function if we ever drop the >associated 387 support.
