From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26259 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2009 09:35:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 26130 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2009 09:34:59 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090826093459.26129.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/40011] Problems with -fwhole-file In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenther at suse dot de" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg02086.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #46 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-08-26 09:34 ------- Subject: Re: Problems with -fwhole-file On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote: > ------- Comment #45 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-26 09:23 ------- > Paul, are there issues other than the ones reported in comment #44 that prevent > making -fwhole-file the default? > Richard, do you believe PR38913 (Fortran does not set TYPE_CANONICAL properly) > can be fixed for 4.5? I don't really know. > I believe whole-file should be made default before the end of stage 1, if any > serious problem emerges that can not be fixed, one can always do a step back. True. > For example, LTO (-flto) enables -fwhole-file by default, and presumably will > be merged in trunk one of these days. > > Furthermore, I believe that it would be a good idea to enable -fwhole-file by > default for Fortan anyway, so that the additional, useful, warning messages are > generated. This will furthermore guarantee that the number of warnings > generated by the FE doesn't depend on optimization flags such as -flto. A bonus > is of course that whole-file gets more testing, so that it becomes reliable. Correct. If required I can build SPEC2000 and SPEC2006 with -fwhole-file again and see what the fallout is. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40011