> When we have a static declaration without definition we diagnose
> that and turn it into an extern declaration. That can alter
> the outcome of maybe_special_function_p here and there's really
> no point in doing that, so don't.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
> PR tree-optimization/108449
> * cgraphunit.cc (check_global_declaration): Do not turn
> undefined statics into externs.
Looks OK to me. I got kind of suprrised we still have
maybe_special_function_p and we do chane of public flag.
I wonder if we can run into similar problem when promoting declaration
at LTO time?
Honza
>
> * gcc.dg/pr108449.c: New testcase.
> ---
> gcc/cgraphunit.cc | 2 --
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108449.c | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108449.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cgraphunit.cc b/gcc/cgraphunit.cc
> index 59ce2708b7b..832818d651f 100644
> --- a/gcc/cgraphunit.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cgraphunit.cc
> @@ -1087,8 +1087,6 @@ check_global_declaration (symtab_node *snode)
> else
> warning (OPT_Wunused_function, "%q+F declared %<static%> but never "
> "defined", decl);
> - /* This symbol is effectively an "extern" declaration now. */
> - TREE_PUBLIC (decl) = 1;
> }
>
> /* Warn about static fns or vars defined but not used. */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108449.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108449.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..4a3ae5b3ed4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108449.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O" } */
> +
> +static int vfork(); /* { dg-warning "used but never defined" } */
> +void f() { vfork(); }
> --
> 2.35.3
