https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3134e02305d00b358659d42400f45bdd49f4fbd3
commit r10-9663-g3134e02305d00b358659d42400f45bdd49f4fbd3
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Many of the *.opt changes are target specific, so you'd need to test it also
> across all targets, and furthermore it depends on what exactly is being
> saved/restored, many options might be at the same spot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Any *.opt changes can break the streaming of optimization or target option
> nodes.
> And from experience with gcc plugins we have such changes ~ each month even on
> release branches.
It may make sense to ad
> Any *.opt changes can break the streaming of optimization or target option
> nodes.
> And from experience with gcc plugins we have such changes ~ each month even on
> release branches.
It may make sense to add a simple test to our regular testers that
either the new revision can consume old objec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any *.opt changes can break the streaming of optimization or target option
nodes.
And from experience with gcc plugins we have such changes ~ each month even on
release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I only reacall backporting the streaming fixes early in gcc10 timeframe
> (August) that was reason for the September bump.
> Didn't we backport some new command line options/params breaking
> streaming of opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
> The LTO minor saw a bump around Sep 10 last year already so the object files
> must be younger or LTO should complain.
>
> I'm not aware of any specific change where we forgot the bumping but there
> were
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The LTO minor saw a bump around Sep 10 last year already so the object files
must be younger or LTO should complain.
The specific assert that triggers isn't a sign of format divergence (it would
be a very o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is not the first time versioning of LTO objects have come up with respect
to the bug fix releases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898
--- Comment #1 from ohaiziejohwahkeezuoz at xff dot cz ---
I figured object files contain the version of the compiler, so the previous
version was GCC: (GNU) 10.2.1 20201110 (built from releases/gcc-10 at that
date)
13 matches
Mail list logo
