From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 87A843892473; Tue,  6 Apr 2021 10:03:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 87A843892473
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 10:03:16 +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: 10.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-99898-4-cYjgoqugR0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99898-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99898-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 10:03:16 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99898

--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> The LTO minor saw a bump around Sep 10 last year already so the object fi=
les
> must be younger or LTO should complain.
>=20
> I'm not aware of any specific change where we forgot the bumping but ther=
e were
> a lot of changes and since we did already bump bumping again shouldn't ca=
use
> any harm.  Still I'd like to be sure we're not seeing a genuine streaming=
 bug
> here.

I only reacall backporting the streaming fixes early in gcc10 timeframe
(August) that was reason for the September bump.
Didn't we backport some new command line options/params breaking
streaming of optimization nodes as usual?

honza=