Re: lto bootstrap fails.

2015-04-14 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:46:35PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote: > > [ Patch elided ] > > > > The patch applied cleanly - this is what I got as a result: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-04/msg01450.html > > > > I hope this is useful. >

Re: lto bootstrap fails.

2015-04-13 Thread Toon Moene
On 04/13/2015 06:00 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:46:35PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote: On 04/11/2015 01:33 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:18:39AM -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:59:19PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote: Like this: https

Re: lto bootstrap fails.

2015-04-13 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:46:35PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote: > [ Patch elided ] > > The patch applied cleanly - this is what I got as a result: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-04/msg01450.html > > I hope this is useful. Looks like the http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg

Re: lto bootstrap fails.

2015-04-13 Thread Trevor Saunders
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:46:35PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote: > On 04/11/2015 01:33 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > >>On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:18:39AM -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote: > >>>On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:59:19PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote: > Like this: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-

Re: lto bootstrap fails.

2015-04-13 Thread Toon Moene
On 04/11/2015 01:33 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:18:39AM -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:59:19PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote: Like this: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-04/msg01086.html ODR rears its head again ... huh, why is c/c-lan

Re: lto bootstrap fails.

2015-04-10 Thread Jan Hubicka
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:18:39AM -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:59:19PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote: > > > Like this: > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-04/msg01086.html > > > > > > ODR rears its head again ... > > > > huh, why is c/c-lang.h ge