On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/23/2016 09:13 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> >> Hello. >> >> As described in the PR, the patch fixes profiled bootstrap on >> x86_64-linux-gnu. >> >> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. >> And >> profiled bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu finishes successfully. >> >> Ready to be installed? >> Martin >> >> >> 0001-Fix-PR-bootstrap-78493.patch >> >> >> From 8b7cd9a83cd14f7a15f39e105ccd78e143ec84f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: marxin <mli...@suse.cz> >> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:08:52 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] Fix PR bootstrap/78493 >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> 2016-11-23 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >> >> PR bootstrap/78493 >> * vec.h (~auto_vec): Do va_heap::release just if >> this->m_vec == &m_auto. That would help compiler not to >> trigger -Werror=free-nonheap-object. > > It's probably the case that the profiling information inhibited a jump > thread optimization (path was considered cold and thus duplication/isolation > not profitable) which left the dead path in the IL. > > I don't like that we're essentially inlining the ::release method. At the > least we should have a pair of comments. In the destructor we should > indicate why we've inlined the release method. In the release method we > should make a note that if the release method is changed that a suitable > change to the auto_vec destructor may be needed.
I don't like the patch either. > Alternately, given all the problems we have with this kind of problem, we > should seriously consider throttling back what we consider an error during a > profiled bootstrap. This kind of stuff is a maintenance nightmare with > minimal value. I think we've always communicated that all non-standard bootstrap configs need -Wdisable-werror. Richard. > jeff >
