On 11/12/2015 07:40 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
+
+ /* Initialize hash values if we are not in LTO mode. */
+ if (!in_lto_p)
+ item->get_hash ();
}
>>>
>>> Hmm, what is the difference to the LTO mode here. I would have expected
>>> that all the items
>>> was an
> >> +
> >> + /* Initialize hash values if we are not in LTO mode. */
> >> + if (!in_lto_p)
> >> + item->get_hash ();
> >> }
> >
> > Hmm, what is the difference to the LTO mode here. I would have expected
> > that all the items
> > was analyzed in both paths?
>
> Difference is t
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm sending reworked version of the patch, where I renamed 'sem_item::hash'
> to 'm_hash'
> and wrapped all usages with 'get_hash'. Apart from that, a new member
> function 'set_hash'
> is utilized for changing the hash value. Ho
On 11/06/2015 05:43 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> Following patch triggers hash calculation of items (functions and variables)
>> in situations where LTO mode is not utilized.
>>
>> Patch survives regression tests and bootstraps on x86_64-linux-pc.
>>
>> Ready for trunk?
>> Thanks,
>> Mart
Hello.
I'm sending reworked version of the patch, where I renamed 'sem_item::hash' to
'm_hash'
and wrapped all usages with 'get_hash'. Apart from that, a new member function
'set_hash'
is utilized for changing the hash value. Hope it's easier for understanding.
Patch can survive regression test
> Hello.
>
> Following patch triggers hash calculation of items (functions and variables)
> in situations where LTO mode is not utilized.
>
> Patch survives regression tests and bootstraps on x86_64-linux-pc.
>
> Ready for trunk?
> Thanks,
> Martin
> >From 62266e21a89777c6dbd680f7c87f15abe603c0
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Following patch triggers hash calculation of items (functions and variables)
> in situations where LTO mode is not utilized.
>
> Patch survives regression tests and bootstraps on x86_64-linux-pc.
Why does that make a difference? D
