[patch] Document the restriction on removing a global from a COMDAT

[Rafael Espíndola]

Richard, do you have any comments? :-)

On 16 December 2014 at 18:28, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems fine to me.  Richard, do you have any comments?
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Rafael Espíndola
> <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ping
>>
>> On 6 November 2014 at 08:45, Rafael Espíndola
>> <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ping
>> >
>> > On 16 October 2014 15:35, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> ping
>> >>
>> >> On 8 October 2014 10:21, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> The attached patch adds a note about why optimizations cannot drop
>> >>> globlas from COMDATs.
>> >>>
>> >>> Since this is the language ref I made the statement fairly generic, in
>> >>> case there is some corner case where an optimization can figure out it
>> >>> is actually safe to modify the symbols in a COMDAT.  Let me know if
>> >>> you would prefer a more strict statement.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Rafael