On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
The problem here is that -flto cannot equate the instrumentation functions
being generated with a user supplied version of the library functions. This
would happen if the user tried to link a transactional program with
Second, it seems that by design, LTO prefers builtins to user-provided
versions of them. In particular, lto_symtab_prevailing_decl() stipulates
that builtins are their own prevailing decl. So even if we lowered TM
before LTO streaming, user provided builtins wouldn't be preferred (and thus
On 01/24/12 17:24, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 01/25/2012 10:16 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
The attached patch fixes the ICE in the PR, though it won't do what
the user ultimately wants to do, given the limitations described.
Perhaps we could create another PR and tag it with an enhancement
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
Second, it seems that by design, LTO prefers builtins to user-provided
versions of them. In particular, lto_symtab_prevailing_decl() stipulates
that builtins are their own prevailing decl. So even if we lowered TM
On 01/25/12 08:23, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Aldy Hernandezal...@redhat.com wrote:
Second, it seems that by design, LTO prefers builtins to user-provided
versions of them. In particular, lto_symtab_prevailing_decl() stipulates
that builtins are their own
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/25/12 08:23, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Aldy Hernandezal...@redhat.com wrote:
Second, it seems that by design, LTO prefers builtins to user-provided
versions of them. In particular,
On 01/26/2012 12:36 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I would like another approval, just in case you disagree with the way I
changed the dummy declarations in the LTO testsuite.
Still ok.
r~
On 01/25/2012 10:16 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
The attached patch fixes the ICE in the PR, though it won't do what
the user ultimately wants to do, given the limitations described.
Perhaps we could create another PR and tag it with an enhancement
request.
An enhancement request pr sounds good.
