[Bug bootstrap/62077] --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto fails

[venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077

--- Comment #53 from Venkataramanan <venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com> ---
Hi Richard, 

>> Well, it would be a workaround only.  The real fix is to track down and fix all remaining issues we have with regarding to IL differences caused by collection changes.

In your earlier comment you mentioned that  

> OTOH fixing that may not be suitable
> for the release branches, neither is passing fixed values for GC
> parameters.

So for  release branch 4.9 shall we go for this workaround patch ?

> First one is fixed, 2nd one is not yet tracked down completely (feel free to continue - it takes a lot of time and I have other stuff to do right now)

I am new to LTO but would love to work learn and contribute :)

Thanks 
Venkat.


-----Original Message-----
From: rguenther at suse dot de [mailto:gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 6:41 PM
To: Kumar, Venkataramanan
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/62077] --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077

--- Comment #52 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On
Mon, 18 Aug 2014, venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
> 
> --- Comment #51 from Venkataramanan <venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot 
> com> --- (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #35)
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com wrote:
> > 
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
> > > 
> > > --- Comment #34 from Venkataramanan <venkataramanan.kumar at amd 
> > > dot com> --- Richard, What I understand is that instead of using 
> > > tune flags for garbage collection, need to try and fix the object code differences?
> > 
> > Yes, it points at real bugs.  OTOH fixing that may not be suitable 
> > for the release branches, neither is passing fixed values for GC 
> > parameters.  So I'm not quite sure what a suitable workaround is 
> > (well, make sure !defined ENABLE_GC_CHECKING && !defined 
> > ENABLE_GC_ALWAYS_COLLECT is consistent between stage1 and stage2 for 
> > bootstrap-lto, that is, init_ggc_heuristics () is executed in the 
> > same way)
> 
> Hi richard,
> 
> In Stage1 we add --enable-checking=yes,types and it sets  
> ENABLE_GC_CHECKING as true
> 
> In Stage2 for release branches it sets ENABLE_GC_CHECKING as false. So 
> the check "#if !defined ENABLE_GC_CHECKING && !defined ENABLE_GC_ALWAYS_COLLECT"
> will be true for stage2 only. 
> 
> ENABLE_GC_ALWAYS_COLLECT is false in both stages.
> 
> Do we need to make sure stage 1 and stage 2 executes the function 
> init_ggc_heuristics and will it set the parameters to same value?

Well, it would be a workaround only.  The real fix is to track down and fix all
remaining issues we have with regarding to IL differences caused by collection
changes.

First one is fixed, 2nd one is not yet tracked down completely (feel free to
continue - it takes a lot of time and I have other stuff to do right now)

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.