https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.2 |8.3
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |8.2
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Apr 13 08:51:47 2018
New Revision: 259367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259367=gcc=rev
Log:
PR lto/71991
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_can_inline_p): Allow safe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > Well, I have tried to discuss this on IRC couple times but we got no
> > conclusion what to do here. I think I will simply go with the proposed patch
> > + additional hack to ignore arch mismatches when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> Well, I have tried to discuss this on IRC couple times but we got no
> conclusion what to do here. I think I will simply go with the proposed patch
> + additional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, I have tried to discuss this on IRC couple times but we got no conclusion
what to do here. I think I will simply go with the proposed patch + additional
hack to ignore arch mismatches when callee has no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> Created attachment 43798 [details]
> proposed fix
>
>
> this patch simply while-lists some transitions of target flags for always
> inline functions. It is ugly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot
org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, the first test-case started to fail w/ LTO from r217659. Honza, can you
please take a look and provide hint what to do?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The testcase misses an 'inline' on fn1 (thus all the warnings). But yes,
> confirmed. And I think the error is somewhat correct though I think it
> is due to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Target|
17 matches
Mail list logo
