From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-413613-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29232 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2013 11:29:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 28596 invoked by uid 48); 30 Jan 2013 11:29:04 -0000
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 11:29:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: lto
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, lto
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org
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-56061-4-Icxej8oHvv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56061-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56061-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: 2013-01/txt/msg02732.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D56061

--- Comment #6 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez <manu at gcc dot gnu=
.org> 2013-01-30 11:29:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Does it make sense to allow "-O0 -flto" at all?

Answering myself, the docs have this example:

Additionally, the optimization flags used to compile individual files are n=
ot
necessarily related to those used at link time. For instance,

          gcc -c -O0 -flto foo.c
          gcc -c -O0 -flto bar.c
          gcc -o myprog -flto -O3 foo.o bar.o


This produces individual object files with unoptimized assembler code, but =
the
resulting binary myprog is optimized at -O3. If, instead, the final binary =
is
generated without -flto, then myprog is not optimized.

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.