[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2022-12-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.0 |9.0

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2022-12-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.0 |6.0

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2022-12-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.5 |9.0

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2018-11-01 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2018-11-01 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Nov 1 09:19:31 2018 New Revision: 265711 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265711=gcc=rev Log: Make __PRETTY_FUNCTION__-like functions mergeable string csts (PR c++/64266).

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2017-07-04 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.4 |6.5 --- Comment #12 from Richard

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-12-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.3 |6.4 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-08-22 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.2 |6.3

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-08-22 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.2 |6.3

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-04-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.0 |6.2 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-03-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Bug 64266 depends on bug 70422, which changed state. Bug 70422 Summary: [6 regression] Bootstrap comparison failure https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70422 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-03-29 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7) > Reverted the patch due to bootstrap problems on some targets. > > Martin, have you tried just building with -fmerge-all-constants? That > should provide the

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-03-28 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 --- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7) > until the C++ committee decides something about whether __func__ can be > shared. Actually, C++11 already says "It is unspecified whether such a variable has

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-03-28 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-03-28 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Mar 28 20:16:21 2016 New Revision: 234511 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234511=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70422 PR c++/64266 PR c++/70353 * decl.c,

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-03-25 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-03-25 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Mar 25 21:29:26 2016 New Revision: 234484 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234484=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/64266 PR c++/70353 Core issue 1962 * decl.c

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2016-03-25 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Created attachment 38098 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38098=edit patch A simple fix is to tell varasm that it's OK to share artificial variables. I'm not sure what other effects

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2015-02-03 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2015-01-05 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) C++11 says that the address of __func__ can be the same as address of other string literals, so I think that allows putting it into

[Bug c++/64266] Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for *.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ functions?

2014-12-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot