Re: Symbols which were not used, still in binary

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: brian@xxxxxxxxxxx, eager@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Symbols which were not used, still in binary
From: Steve Kreyer <steve.kreyer@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:21:39 +0200
Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <44A2E3D6.F0A78450@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <44A2DF65.8010704@xxxxxx> <44A2E3D6.F0A78450@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614)

Hello Brain, hi Michael,

your arguments sound plausible to me,
also I wasn't really aware about the function context of "static".

Thanks for the clarification!

Regards,

Steve

References:
- Symbols which were not used, still in binary
  - From: Steve Kreyer
- Re: Symbols which were not used, still in binary
  - From: Brian Dessent

Prev by Date: Re: Symbols which were not used, still in binary
Next by Date: Re: Address of label which is defined within an asm statement?
Previous by thread: Re: Symbols which were not used, still in binary
Next by thread: can I force linking to older libstdc++?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]

Powered by Linux