This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: *PING* Re: [PATCH] Save checksum of compiler options in LTO files

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>> There are many more issues that affect LTO bytecode compatibility
>> (such as added tree codes for example). ?So I think as developers
>> we should just live with the fact that this happens on the trunk.
>
> It's not only trunk -- the problem can easily happen for minor
> releases if someone changes/adds an option (and I believe that
> happens)

It usually doesn't, and we could easily include the minor version number
in the LTO bytecode revision (now I have no idea where that code actually
is nor what it does currently ;)).

Richard.

> Also I think the code is relatively clean and not a big
> maintenance burden (but then I'm somewhat biased)
>
> -Andi
> --
> ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
>
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]