[Bug middle-end/30700] [4.2 Regression] YA bogus undefined reference error to static func with -g and -O

[hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-17 19:02 ---
Subject: Bug 30700

Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Apr 17 19:02:09 2007
New Revision: 123922

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123922
Log:
PR middle-end/30700
* dwarf2out.c (reference_to_unused): Ask cgraph for functions
availablility; add more sanity checking; ask varpool only about
VAR_DECL.

Modified:
branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/dwarf2out.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30700

[Bug middle-end/30700] [4.2 Regression] YA bogus undefined reference error to static func with -g and -O

[hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-17 19:04 ---
Fixed.


-- 

hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30700

[Bug middle-end/30700] [4.2 Regression] YA bogus undefined reference error to static func with -g and -O

[tbm at cyrius dot com]

--- Comment #4 from tbm at cyrius dot com  2007-04-12 07:24 ---
If you click on View Bug Activity you'll see that the bug used to be marked
as 4.2/4.3.  Richi changed it to 4.2 only when the patch got committed to
mainline.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30700

[Bug middle-end/30700] [4.2 Regression] YA bogus undefined reference error to static func with -g and -O

[howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu]

--- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu  2007-04-12 
17:58 ---
Does that mean that the patch for mainline wouldn't work on gcc 4.2 branch or
that the patch just hasn't been applied to gcc 4.2 branch yet?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30700

[Bug middle-end/30700] [4.2 Regression] YA bogus undefined reference error to static func with -g and -O

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-12 22:41 ---
The latter.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30700

[Bug middle-end/30700] [4.2 Regression] YA bogus undefined reference error to static func with -g and -O

[howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu]

--- Comment #3 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu  2007-04-11 
15:05 ---
I'm puzzled why the fix for this PR was checked into mainline instead of gcc
4.2 branch since only gcc 4.2 is marked as known to fail.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30700

[Bug middle-end/30700] [4.2 Regression] YA bogus undefined reference error to static func with -g and -O

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-04 12:46 ---
Fixed on the mainline by

Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Mar 30 09:03:55 2007
New Revision: 123358

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123358
Log:
PR middle-end/PR30700
* dwarf2out.c (reference_to_unused): Ask cgraph for functions 
availablility; add more sanity checking; ask varpool only about
VAR_DECL.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/dwarf2out.c


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Known to work|4.1.1 4.1.2 |4.1.1 4.1.2 4.3.0
Summary|[4.2/4.3 Regression] YA |[4.2 Regression] YA bogus
   |bogus undefined reference   |undefined reference error to
   |error to static func with -g|static func with -g and -O
   |and -O  |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30700

[Bug middle-end/30700] [4.2 Regression] YA bogus undefined reference error to static func with -g and -O

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-04 18:02 ---
Index: dwarf2out.c
===
*** dwarf2out.c (revision 121576)
--- dwarf2out.c (working copy)
*** reference_to_unused (tree * tp, int * wa
*** 10007,10012 
--- 10007,10018 
if (!node-needed)
return *tp;
  }
+   else if (DECL_P (*tp)  TREE_CODE (*tp) == FUNCTION_DECL)
+ {
+   struct cgraph_node *node = cgraph_node (*tp);
+   if (!node-needed)
+ return *tp;
+ }

return NULL_TREE;
  }

honza - does this look sane and can we maybe do this whole function in
graph ways?


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-02-04 18:02:36
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30700