search for: 85eec297

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > After looking at the Livermore for a while, we found the issue that was > causing LTO to produce a different result. > > Consider the code below [1]. setup() doesn't touch bar/baz, main() doesn't > reference foo. LTO finds, correctly, that it can remove the setup(), but the > result

...e that I though were harmless, and added a few arrays to be initialized by others and haven't checked that the ranges were dynamic. cheers, --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130108/85eec297/attachment.html>

After looking at the Livermore for a while, we found the issue that was causing LTO to produce a different result. Consider the code below [1]. setup() doesn't touch bar/baz, main() doesn't reference foo. LTO finds, correctly, that it can remove the setup(), but the result is different. The code is clearly wrong, but the compiler has no right to fix user's stupidity, even at that