public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/98338] [11 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on x86_64-linux Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 21:34:04 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-98338-4-l1QyHIhI8g@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-98338-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338 --- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> --- > > Honza, any ideas on this? > The comment on assert says > /* In LTO mode we may have speculative edges set. */ > gcc_assert (in_lto_p || size_info->size == size_info->self_size); > Which seems expected because the speculative edges are not accounted by > self_size. So perhaps we simply want to track if there is speculative > edge and disable the sanity check inthat case. https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg01650.html is the patch that intoduced the comment and it seems it does right thing. size_inf->self_size is normally computed from original function body and if speculation is added it is not udpated, while size_info->size contains size adjusted by all speculations and inline decision, so in presence of speculatie edges we can not expect both to match. I will check tomorrow if it makes code to compile. Honza > > Honza
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-28 21:34 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-12-17 0:50 [Bug bootstrap/98338] New: " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-17 0:52 ` [Bug bootstrap/98338] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-17 0:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-17 8:31 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-17 9:03 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-17 9:50 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-17 9:51 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-17 10:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-17 10:06 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-17 10:09 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-04 15:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-28 16:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-28 21:26 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz 2021-01-28 21:34 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz [this message] 2021-01-29 17:16 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-01 8:26 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-12 17:32 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-12 17:33 ` [Bug bootstrap/98338] [10/11 " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-14 22:31 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-26 12:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-26 17:07 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz 2021-02-26 17:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-26 17:38 ` Jan Hubicka 2021-02-26 17:38 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz 2021-02-26 17:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-01 12:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-01 13:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-01 13:38 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-02 14:54 ` cvs-commit 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-98338-4-l1QyHIhI8g@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).