[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-02-26 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-01-30 Thread hubicka at ucw dot cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 --- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-30 17:16:25 UTC --- > They are useful. It should be technically possible to support -O1 vs. -O0, > and if not, we have means to forcefully enable -O1 at link-time (which we > should do then). I per

[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-01-30 Thread d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 --- Comment #7 from Dmitry Gorbachev 2013-01-30 13:39:37 UTC --- > The other way around, compiling and installing with > -O2 but then at link time use -O0 -g to get a debug > build is more questionable > However, I still don't see the p

[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-01-30 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-01-30 11:29:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Does it make sense to allow "-O0 -flto" at all? Answering myself, the docs have this example: Additionally, the optimization flags used to compile i

[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-01-30 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2013-01-30 11:25:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Does it make sense to allow "-O0 -flto" at all? The classical example why we want to support this is a static library which you'd compile and inst

[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-01-30 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-01-30 11:21:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > > I don't think we necessarily want to support this fully... > > Are such bug reports useful, or it's just a nuisan

[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-01-30 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-01-30 Thread d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 --- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev 2013-01-30 10:54:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I don't think we necessarily want to support this fully... Are such bug reports useful, or it's just a nuisance to you, gcc devs? :)

[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-01-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)

2013-01-23 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0