From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14347 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2009 15:24:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 14260 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Sep 2009 15:24:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:23:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n89FNuXV017737; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:23:56 -0400 Received: from stone.twiddle.home (vpn-227-123.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.227.123]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n89FNu0O017320; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:23:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4AA7C88B.7010907@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:24:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Diego Novillo Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge from LTO: eh_personality changes References: <4AA293E4.8090301@redhat.com> <4AA2A9D7.3030406@redhat.com> <4AA67CD1.8020602@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00610.txt.bz2 On 09/09/2009 02:34 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > As we need the information to decide inlining it would be at least > an inconvenience to LTO to also read in (parts of) EH data in the > IPA phase. So I'll leave that alone for now. Given that IPA needs that EH data to actually perform the inlining, how is that an inconvenience? r~