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 lto/99898] Possible LTO object incompatibility on gcc-10 branch
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:32:13 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-99898-4-OcQJxpfkfC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-99898-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898

--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> Many of the *.opt changes are target specific, so you'd need to test it also
> across all targets, and furthermore it depends on what exactly is being
> saved/restored, many options might be at the same spot.
> So perhaps we want to compute some hash of the options stuff (e.g. compute it
> by the awk scripts that emit options*.[ch]) and use that to determine LTO
> compatibility in addition to the version?

That would work.  One does not really do that in lto header, simply
stream the hash before streaming out the optimization_node decl.
Bit sad would be that w/o version info you have no indication if you
mixed new compiler with old objects or vice versa, but that is minor
anoyance I guess.  It would be good that compiler would just
sorryclaiming that it can not read object files created by different
version..

I believe we already safe a diff from default values rather than
streaming out all values. An option would be tom strea the option names
rather than indexes so adding/removing completely unrelated option does
not disturb the file format.

Honza
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-04-06 11:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-03 16:20 [Bug lto/99898] New: " ohaiziejohwahkeezuoz at xff dot cz
2021-04-03 17:34 ` [Bug lto/99898] " ohaiziejohwahkeezuoz at xff dot cz
2021-04-04  5:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06  6:20 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06  6:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06 10:03 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2021-04-06 10:07 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2021-04-06 10:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06 10:11   ` Jan Hubicka
2021-04-06 10:11 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2021-04-06 10:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06 11:32 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz [this message]
2021-04-08  8:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-08  8:58 ` rguenth 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-99898-4-OcQJxpfkfC@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: link
Be 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).