On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:41:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On July 3, 2014 7:37:13 AM CEST, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 04:06:30PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >> I think that makes sense; I'm not aware of anyone working
On July 3, 2014 10:47:52 PM CEST, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 22:14 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 21:52 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > > On July 3, 2014 8:38:14 PM CEST, Jakub Jelinek
>wr
On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 22:14 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 21:52 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On July 3, 2014 8:38:14 PM CEST, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:37:07PM +0200, Richard
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 21:52 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On July 3, 2014 8:38:14 PM CEST, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:37:07PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> Well, simply removing the regression testi
On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 21:52 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On July 3, 2014 8:38:14 PM CEST, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:37:07PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Well, simply removing the regression testing for LTO is a
> >maintainance nightmare as well.
> >>
> >> The guali
On July 3, 2014 8:38:14 PM CEST, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:37:07PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Well, simply removing the regression testing for LTO is a
>maintainance nightmare as well.
>>
>> The guality testsuite is very noisy anyway with all the xfail and
>xpass.
>
>L
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:37:07PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Well, simply removing the regression testing for LTO is a maintainance
> nightmare as well.
>
> The guality testsuite is very noisy anyway with all the xfail and xpass.
Let's keep it as is then?
Jakub
On July 3, 2014 9:55:36 AM CEST, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:41:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On July 3, 2014 7:37:13 AM CEST, Jakub Jelinek
>wrote:
>> >On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 04:06:30PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> >> I think that makes sense; I'm not aware of anyo
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:41:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On July 3, 2014 7:37:13 AM CEST, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 04:06:30PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> I think that makes sense; I'm not aware of anyone working on
> >improving LTO
> >> debugging.
> >
> >I thin
On July 3, 2014 7:37:13 AM CEST, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 04:06:30PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> I think that makes sense; I'm not aware of anyone working on
>improving LTO
>> debugging.
>
>I think at this point all we care about is that with -flto we don't ICE
>on
>those,
On July 3, 2014 1:06:30 AM CEST, Jason Merrill wrote:
>I think that makes sense; I'm not aware of anyone working on improving
>LTO debugging.
I've done that in the past. So it would be nice to verify we don't regress
existing tests.
Richard.
>Jason
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 04:06:30PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I think that makes sense; I'm not aware of anyone working on improving LTO
> debugging.
I think at this point all we care about is that with -flto we don't ICE on
those, perhaps we should arrange to change all the tests into dg-do co
I think that makes sense; I'm not aware of anyone working on improving
LTO debugging.
Jason
Hi,
While writing new guality.exp tests I noticed they often just fail
when ran with -flto, even though they PASS in all other cases. When
I asked on irc about this I was told that LTO was known to not play
well with DWARF debuginfo anyway. If that is the case, it seems better
to disable -flto for
14 matches
Mail list logo