On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:05:25PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 23.08.2010 13:30, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > >>On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>>On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote: > >>>>On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users? > >>>>>There is a complete list here [0], but those ones are, in my opinion, > >>>>>very nice: > >>>>> - The new link time optimiser. > >>>>> - Improved C++0x support. > >>>>> - Plugins support. > >>>>> > >>>>My understanding is that lto in 4.5 is not quite there yet. Not that > >>>>I've tried it or anything. > >>> > >>>I don't share your understanding. I tried it for some builds. > >> > >>I've tried it on the work repository, and lto ICEs the compiler. Plus I > >>get 2 other independant ICEs that I've not had time to reduce (hence the > >>lack of bug report yet). > > > >>Though this happens with the gcc-4.5 in unstable, I've not tried with > >>the one from experimental yet. > > > >Okay, it's not strictly speaking an ICE but I get, even with the one from > >experimental: > > > >qdb/qoutput-c.c:424:1: sorry, unimplemented: gimple bytecode streams do not > >support the optimization attribute > > are the optimization flags both passed to the compiler and the linker?
I opened #594062 meaning that it's pretty minor. Though very fast one trips on http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44802 which is pretty serious for any kind of big enough build (as in using visibility and commodity archives) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madco...@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100823124954.gm1...@madism.org