From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-478358-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 32408 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2015 18:51:36 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 27871 invoked by uid 48); 24 Feb 2015 18:51:32 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/64374] [5 Regression] LTO ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:43:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: lto
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64374-4-cww8ZWODRA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64374-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64374-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg02690.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374

--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> I see another issue.  When we stream in
> OPTIMIZATION_NODE/TARGET_OPTIONS_NODE, we don't use
> build_optimization_node/build_target_option_node and thus we don't merge
> identical nodes by hashing them together in between different streamed in
> TUs (or does it happen somehow else)?  If it doesn't happen, then it
> unnecessarily slows down lto1, because it needs to reinitialize the backend
> more often and switch in between different target options even when they are
> effectively the same.
> Though, of course, if we'd hash them together, we'd need to call some target
> hook to resync the streamed in options with the global state before hashing
> them together, because they can't be changed while they are in the hash
> table.

As discussed with Richard on IRC, this is likely non-issue - while the nodes
won't be merged using the normal hash table, they will be merged through LTO
tree merging.