On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> I suppose it's fine to move the testcase to the C++ lto testsuite
> if you verify it will use the C compiler for the C parts.
Thanks. Testing pointed out one additional feature lto testing need to make
thing whole thing go. Committed.
2013-
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Mike Stump wrote:
> >> On Sep 25, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >>> 2012-09-25 Richard Guenther
> >>>
> >>> PR lto/54625
> >>> * lto-symtab.c (lto_symtab_me
On Oct 15, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> 2012-09-25 Richard Guenther
>>>
>>> PR lto/54625
>>> * lto-symtab.c (lto_symtab_merge_cgraph_nodes_1): Do not merge
>>> cgraph n
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > 2012-09-25 Richard Guenther
> >
> > PR lto/54625
> > * lto-symtab.c (lto_symtab_merge_cgraph_nodes_1): Do not merge
> > cgraph nodes for builtins.
> >
> > * gcc.dg/lto/pr54702_0.
On Sep 25, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> 2012-09-25 Richard Guenther
>
> PR lto/54625
> * lto-symtab.c (lto_symtab_merge_cgraph_nodes_1): Do not merge
> cgraph nodes for builtins.
>
> * gcc.dg/lto/pr54702_0.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.dg/lto/pr54702_1.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> This fixes PR54702 and LTO bootstrap (well, at least I now survive
> stage2 cc1 build). We shouldn't enter builtins into the symtab
> asm-name hash, too much code seems to be confused by that (at least
> we should at most insert builtins with a se
This fixes PR54702 and LTO bootstrap (well, at least I now survive
stage2 cc1 build). We shouldn't enter builtins into the symtab
asm-name hash, too much code seems to be confused by that (at least
we should at most insert builtins with a set assembler name).
Smells somewhat LTO-ish, but well.
