This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)
- From: "d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:39:37 +0000
- Subject: [Bug lto/56061] [4.8 Regression] ICE in lto1 (in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267)
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-56061-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Gorbachev <d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com> 2013-01-30 13:39:37 UTC ---
> The other way around, compiling and installing with
> -O2 but then at link time use -O0 -g to get a debug
> build is more questionable
> However, I still don't see the point of "-O0 -flto"
> at link-time. We should either force it to be at
> least -O1 or (in my opinion better) give an error.
I think it could make sense. For example, I compile a certain static library
with `-O3 -flto', without `-g' (it's considered already debugged) and without
`-fno-fat-lto-objects' (so it can be used either with or without LTO); it is
shared between several programs. The programs have their own static libs, which
are compiled with `-g -O1 -flto -fno-fat-lto-objects' (could be `-O0', but
doesn't work, PR55102). Then, they are linked using `-g -O0 -flto' to get a
(partially) debug enabled program, or with `-O3 -flto' for a fully optimized
program.
> the docs have this example
Yes, but there is an aforementioned bug 55102.