> On 07/15/2014 04:46 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >I think we still want to check that the local comdats are linked into
> >the corresponding comdat group, so we probably want
> >to test node->definition instead of node->public, or perhaps just clear
> >COMDAT_GROUP info when removing symbol?
>
> Lik
On 07/15/2014 04:46 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
I think we still want to check that the local comdats are linked into
the corresponding comdat group, so we probably want
to test node->definition instead of node->public, or perhaps just clear
COMDAT_GROUP info when removing symbol?
Like this?
commi
> The problem in this testcase is that we inlined the decloned
> constructor into the calling thunks, so it was removed by
> symtab_remove_unreachable_nodes. verify_symtab sees that it is no
> longer linked to the calling thunks with same_comdat_group and
> complains.
>
> Here I've changed verify
The problem in this testcase is that we inlined the decloned constructor
into the calling thunks, so it was removed by
symtab_remove_unreachable_nodes. verify_symtab sees that it is no
longer linked to the calling thunks with same_comdat_group and complains.
Here I've changed verify_symtab to
