> 2019-02-13 Ian Lance Taylor
>
> * optc-save-gen.awk: Set var_opt_hash for initial optimizations
> and set current index for other optimizations.
>
> 2019-02-13 Ian Lance Taylor
>
> * gcc.dg/func-attr-1.c: New test.
I went ahead and committed this patch.
Ian
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:08 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > So I guess we need some alternate PerFunction option flag that makes
> > it per-function, but not part of the ICF hash?
>
> Like this...
>
> If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause c
On 01/06/2017 11:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On January 6, 2017 3:49:54 AM GMT+01:00, Alexandre Oliva
> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact
>> that
>>> it is not enough.
>>
>> Sorry, it wasn't clear 'enoug
On 01/06/2017 10:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 12:49:54AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact that
>>> it is not enough.
>>
>> Sorry, it wasn't clear 'enough for w
On January 6, 2017 3:49:54 AM GMT+01:00, Alexandre Oliva
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact
>that
>> it is not enough.
>
>Sorry, it wasn't clear 'enough for what'. It's enough to fix the
>bug/symptom I had obse
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 12:49:54AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact that
> > it is not enough.
>
> Sorry, it wasn't clear 'enough for what'. It's enough to fix the
> bug/symptom I had
On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact that
> it is not enough.
Sorry, it wasn't clear 'enough for what'. It's enough to fix the
bug/symptom I had observed and intended to fix, but yes, there is
another latent -fcompare-debug
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 07:13:50PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > OPTIMIZATION_NODE is created by saving options, computing hash
> > (cl_option_hasher::hash apparently for OPTIMIZATION_NODE does not
> > use cl_optimization_hash, why?), comparing (no cl_optimization_eq,
> > just memcmp for equali
On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> OPTIMIZATION_NODE is created by saving options, computing hash
> (cl_option_hasher::hash apparently for OPTIMIZATION_NODE does not
> use cl_optimization_hash, why?), comparing (no cl_optimization_eq,
> just memcmp for equality) and if there is a match, use
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:06:09AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to
> be processed in a different order due to different hashes, which in turn
> causes different funcdef_nos to be assigned to functions. Since these
> numbers ar
On Jan 4, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> So I guess we need some alternate PerFunction option flag that makes
> it per-function, but not part of the ICF hash?
Like this...
If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to
be processed in a different order due to different
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to
>>> be processed in a different order due to different hashes, w
On Jan 4, 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to
>> be processed in a different order due to different hashes, which in turn
>> causes different funcdef_nos to be assigned to
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to
> be processed in a different order due to different hashes, which in turn
> causes different funcdef_nos to be assigned to functions. Since these
> numbers are include
If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to
be processed in a different order due to different hashes, which in turn
causes different funcdef_nos to be assigned to functions. Since these
numbers are included in -fcompare-debug dumps, they cause failures.
Since these op
15 matches
Mail list logo
