https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77472
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wbrana at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77472
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> So apart from the known algorithmic issue in key updating (which Honza
> promises
> to fix since a few years ...) this is a "doctor it hurts when I do this"
> kind-of-issue.
Hmm, I actually have patchset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77472
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77472
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So apart from the known algorithmic issue in key updating (which Honza promises
to fix since a few years ...) this is a "doctor it hurts when I do this"
kind-of-issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77472
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I'm not sure what is the best way forward.
> Maybe gcc should ignore __attribute__((flatten)) when using LTO
> unconditionally?
Well, I am not sure - flatten can make compiler explode without LTO, too,
and
