On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
As analyzed in PR62032, this patch fixes the latent lto bug b
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
As analyzed in PR62032, this patch fixes the latent lto bug b
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> As analyzed in PR62032, this patch fixes the latent lto bug by switching
>>> arguments of lto_define_builtins, otherwise vs
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> As analyzed in PR62032, this patch fixes the latent lto bug by switching
>> arguments of lto_define_builtins, otherwise vsnprintf-chk.c would fail on
>> arm/aarch64 with lto options
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> As analyzed in PR62032, this patch fixes the latent lto bug by switching
> arguments of lto_define_builtins, otherwise vsnprintf-chk.c would fail on
> arm/aarch64 with lto options.
>
> Is it ok if bootstrap and test pass?
Ok (would be nice