From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-408771-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8424 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2012 16:26:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 8067 invoked by uid 55); 4 Dec 2012 16:25:40 -0000
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/55395] [4.8 Regression] libgfortran bootstrap failure on powerpc-linux-gnu and arm-linux-gnueabi
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:26:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-55395-4-JTVedR6zFP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55395-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55395-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg00379.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55395

--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> 2012-12-04 16:25:36 UTC ---
> It is always used if available and there is no other way to generate the
> location info for it (which for vars that were removed from the varpool is
> probably always, I bet those aren't assigned memory locations).  The question
> is of course if it can successfully generate something out of it or not, but
> you can't guess that before it tried.
> For the invalid error part of this PR, it would be just important that it
> doesn't set DECL_INITIAL to error_mark_node, but some other magic value which
> says, this decl had non-zero initializer, but ignore the other details about
> it.  Of course to make the debug info more complete you really should keep the

OK, what value it should be?  We always used error_mark_node with this meaning
both in LTO and cgraph.
> initializer.
> Aren't you building mozilla with LTO without -g anyway, given that LTO screws
> up debug info so terribly that it isn't useful at all?

I build -g to at least catch the ICEs. Of course we should work towards making
-g
useful not useless.

> Can you come up with some short testcase that would show what kind of large
> constructors you care about?

static int a[]={huge sequence of numbers};
In C++ we have a lot of class constructors and vtables that comes from headers
and can go away...