https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Isn't it going to cause problems if we fold some accesses to the static var
> using the expressions in the initializer, we'd end up with not having the
> vars ref
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Isn't it going to cause problems if we fold some accesses to the static var
using the expressions in the initializer, we'd end up with not having the vars
referenced?
If backporting anything, my preference wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
How about backporting r187719? I don't remember whether there are any
dependencies here, but ... it seems it's the first patch in the series
to cleanup all this stuff.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Other testcases without __PRETTY_FUNCTION__:
void bar (const char *);
void
foo (void)
{
static const char r[] = "abc";
static const char *s = t;
auto void baz (void) { bar (s); }
baz ();
}
void bar (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, it ICEs even without inlining, so guess the issue is just that we
have a local static var that is referenced by some other function (thus used)
and we don't mark its DECL_INITIAL as referenced.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
