http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44965
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||edwintorok at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44965
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44965
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-03
14:46:40 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 3 14:46:26 2011
New Revision: 180827
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180827
Log:
2011-11-03 Richard Guenther
PR lto/449
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44965
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 00:04 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It's not only development versions, options can change between minor releases
> Also I don't think LTO_major/minor is always increased anyways.
I think we should just store out the GCC ver
--- Comment #3 from andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2010-07-16 23:58 ---
It's not only development versions, options can change between minor releases
Also I don't think LTO_major/minor is always increased anyways.
Why should a hash over the option table not work?
--
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 23:52 ---
Really it is kinda expected that for development versions, lto file format is
going to be unstable. Now crashing is not the right thing to do. Doing a hash
is not going to work either I think.
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #1 from andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2010-07-16 23:07 ---
One way to solve this would be to use a hash of the option table as a version
number.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44965
