http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60235
--- Comment #7 from Mehdi Amini ---
Yeah I can declare it inline, indeed I already did, I was just considering it a
workaround for a "missing compiler optimization" ;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60235
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Clang doesn't care about lots of things.
Anyway, why don't you make the specialization inline?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60235
--- Comment #5 from Mehdi Amini ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> The specialization is a regular function, not comdat, thus it is not
> appropriate to inline it at -O2 -fpic, only -O3 is inlining functions
> regardless to whether
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60235
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Even at -O3 we inline only functions that either can not be interposed (i.e.
static or -fno-pic) or are known to be same everywhere (comdat and functions
declared inlined). I was considering command line option
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60235
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> The specialization is a regular function, not comdat, thus it is not
> appropriate to inline it at -O2 -fpic, only -O3 is inlining functions
> regardless to wheth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60235
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60235
--- Comment #1 from Mehdi Amini ---
Created attachment 32149
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32149&action=edit
Test Case
