From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7715 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2004 17:23:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7679 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2004 17:23:10 -0000 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040330172310.7678.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040213062200.14137.mattyt-bugzilla@tpg.com.au> References: <20040213062200.14137.mattyt-bugzilla@tpg.com.au> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug pch/14137] [pch] ICE in cgraph_finalize_compilation_unit, at cgraphunit.c:407 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg03410.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-03-30 17:23 ------- Subject: Re: [pch] ICE in cgraph_finalize_compilation_unit, at cgraphunit.c:407 steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: >------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-27 10:11 ------- >I think this idea is unsafe and don't want to implement it. > > Since silent miscompilation and/or inexplicable crashses can occur from using a wrong PCH, we should err on the side of caution. If the flags used to build the PCH and to compile the main translation unit are not known to be compatible, we should reject the PCH. Sometimes, that will mean that we do not use a PCH when we could, but that's hardly as confusing to users as doing something unpredictable because our data structures get confused. This conservative approach is also what is used by other PCH implemenations, so it will match user expectations. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14137