This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: role of executable_checksum & LTO?




On Jun 29, 2010, at 9:35 AM, Basile Starynkevitch <basile@starynkevitch.net > wrote:

On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 07:02 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Basile Starynkevitch <basile@starynkevitch.net> writes:
I think it would be fairly difficult to construct a case where a plugin
cared about the exact compiler, rather than the exact version and
configuration. The only reason that the PCH support cares about the
exact compiler is that it more or less takes a memory dump of the
allocated GC memory.


I agree, but a plugin could also do likewise, e.g. write memory contents
in some kind of persistent storage.


Beside, the hack is quite easy to implement (just add
executable_checksum to lto1 binary, or perhaps generate an md5sum of
most GCC files and store it).

While I can understand the reason, I still find strange and
counter-intuitive that lto1 lacks executable_checksum that cc1 has.

How so f951 lacks it too so does gnat1 and gcj1. And any other frontend besides cc1, cc1plus, cc1obj and cc1plusobj. It is like saying lto1 is missing c_build* too.



Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***




Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]