public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:40:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-56061-4-GMaciAeiBu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-56061-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061 --- Comment #7 from Dmitry Gorbachev <d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com> 2013-01-30 13:39:37 UTC --- > The other way around, compiling and installing with > -O2 but then at link time use -O0 -g to get a debug > build is more questionable > However, I still don't see the point of "-O0 -flto" > at link-time. We should either force it to be at > least -O1 or (in my opinion better) give an error. I think it could make sense. For example, I compile a certain static library with `-O3 -flto', without `-g' (it's considered already debugged) and without `-fno-fat-lto-objects' (so it can be used either with or without LTO); it is shared between several programs. The programs have their own static libs, which are compiled with `-g -O1 -flto -fno-fat-lto-objects' (could be `-O0', but doesn't work, PR55102). Then, they are linked using `-g -O0 -flto' to get a (partially) debug enabled program, or with `-O3 -flto' for a fully optimized program. > the docs have this example Yes, but there is an aforementioned bug 55102.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-30 13:40 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-01-21 6:30 [Bug lto/56061] New: " d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com 2013-01-23 16:28 ` [Bug lto/56061] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28 14:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 10:54 ` d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com 2013-01-30 11:21 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 11:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 11:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 11:29 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 13:40 ` d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com [this message] 2013-01-30 17:17 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-02-26 15:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-22 14:43 ` [Bug lto/56061] [4.8/4.9 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-31 10:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-10-16 9:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-05-22 9:02 ` [Bug lto/56061] [4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-12-19 13:34 ` [Bug lto/56061] [4.8/4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-29 7:20 ` [Bug lto/56061] [4.8/4.9 " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-23 8:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 20:04 ` [Bug lto/56061] [4.9 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 20:33 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-56061-4-GMaciAeiBu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).