On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Caroline Tice wrote:
> I have managed to reproduce the issue now, and the patch does appear
> to fix the ICE.
>
> There is a second issue, which will need more investigation: When
> compiled with '-flto' the extra internal functions that VTV generates,
> and which are neces
I have managed to reproduce the issue now, and the patch does appear
to fix the ICE.
There is a second issue, which will need more investigation: When
compiled with '-flto' the extra internal functions that VTV generates,
and which are necessary for it to work correctly, do not get
propagated in
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Caroline Tice wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:57 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >
> > Looks like vtv_generate_init_routine calls symtab->process_new_functions
> > () which has seriously bad effects on GCCs internal memory state.
> >
> > VTV has zero testsuite coverage it se
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:57 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Looks like vtv_generate_init_routine calls symtab->process_new_functions
> () which has seriously bad effects on GCCs internal memory state.
>
> VTV has zero testsuite coverage it seems and besides its initial
> commit didn't receive any l
Looks like vtv_generate_init_routine calls symtab->process_new_functions
() which has seriously bad effects on GCCs internal memory state.
VTV has zero testsuite coverage it seems and besides its initial
commit didn't receive any love.
Can we rip it out please?
Is the patch OK? (Pointless) b
