> Anyway, the problem here isn't that I particularly care about coming up
> with some workaround to make LTO work, but rather that tests from the
> gcc testsuite are failing on this target because of what looks like
> buggy LTO behavior instead of bugs in the target support, and I wanted
> to b
On 01/02/2012 12:22 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Sandra Loosemore writes:
I'm still finding my way around LTO; can anyone who's more familiar
with this help narrow down where to look for the cause of this? I
don't even know if this is a compiler or ld bug at this point. I'm
I would look into the
Sandra Loosemore writes:
>
> I'm still finding my way around LTO; can anyone who's more familiar
> with this help narrow down where to look for the cause of this? I
> don't even know if this is a compiler or ld bug at this point. I'm
I would look into the interaction between the LTO plugin and
I've been investigating some LTO-related test failures in a GCC port for
a DSP target that has not yet been submitted to the FSF. The bug I've
hit looks like the same issue with spurious multiple definitions that
was previously reported on the gcc-help list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/201
