On 6/13/12, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 12-06-13 08:46 , Diego Novillo wrote:
The LTO bits are fine. I would prefer if an FE maintainer takes
a second look over the other bits. Jason, Joseph?
Incidentally, could you please test it with an LTO-enabled bootstrap?
$
OK.
Jason
On 12-06-11 14:45 , Lawrence Crowl wrote:
The intent of the phases was to have a high-level but mutually exclusive
accounting of compile time. We want to track compile time in a way that
tells us which conceptual phases are taking the most time. That intent
is not currently satisfied. This
On 12-06-13 08:46 , Diego Novillo wrote:
The LTO bits are fine. I would prefer if an FE maintainer takes a second
look over the other bits. Jason, Joseph?
Incidentally, could you please test it with an LTO-enabled bootstrap?
$ ../src/configure --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
The LTO bits are fine. I would prefer if an FE maintainer takes a second look
over the other bits. Jason, Joseph?
The c-decl.c changes are fine with me.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
The intent of the phases was to have a high-level but mutually exclusive
accounting of compile time. We want to track compile time in a way that
tells us which conceptual phases are taking the most time. That intent
is not currently satisfied. This patch restores that intent.
Add code to
