Well, false alarm. Maybe not _completely_ solved. I made sure that all implementations emitted objects, e.g. by moving null constructors to the source and including asm("") in the body. And this helped! So I conclude that (perhaps appropriately) the gcc inline-small-functions is removing null-body functions. But: (1) it is difficult to track all of these down in a large code: and (2) I believe that this does not cover all the cases of that optimization. So in the end, I'm stuck with "-O3 -fno-inline-small-functions" which does seem to give me working code and no obvious performance hit. Any thoughts?? On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:00:16AM -0400, Sohail Somani wrote:
On 30/03/2010 11:58 PM, Martin Weinberg wrote:
I believe I found the issue requiring the -fno-inline-small functions as well. So at this point everything is working "-O3". I'm grateful for the help.
Please share :)
-- Sohail Somani http://uint32t.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
-- Martin Weinberg Phone: (413) 545-3821 Dept. of Astronomy FAX: (413) 545-4223 530 Graduate Research Tower weinberg@astro.umass.edu University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003-4525