From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-156306-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4008 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2009 15:43:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 4000 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2009 15:43:56 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:43:52 +0000
Received: from zps18.corp.google.com (zps18.corp.google.com [172.25.146.18]) 	by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n81FhmKN017541 	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:43:49 +0100
Received: from yxe36 (yxe36.prod.google.com [10.190.2.36]) 	by zps18.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n81FhAts031880 	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:43:46 -0700
Received: by yxe36 with SMTP id 36so90995yxe.11         for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.14.3 with SMTP id 3mr10605959ybn.288.1251819825387; Tue,  	01 Sep 2009 08:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4A9D40C8.7080000@qnx.com>
References: <4A9D40C8.7080000@qnx.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:43:00 -0000
Message-ID: <b798aad50909010843n574c5f9co402679dbe92e1f13@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lto] Reader-writer compatibility?
From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
To: rmansfield@qnx.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:42, Ryan Mansfield<rmansfield@qnx.com> wrote:
> Is it required that the same compiler that generated lto objects be used =
to
> read them? I've come across a couple ICEs with the current revision readi=
ng
> lto objects created by a slightly older version =C2=A0but same configurat=
ion. Is
> this simply invalid usage of my part?

It's likely.  How much drift between the two revisions?  Can you
recreate the ICE if you write and read with the exact same revision?
If so, please file a bug.


Diego.