On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 20:52, Gabriel Charette wrote:
> An ICE in lto_streamer_cache_get is not very intuitive to point out
> the problem to the user in this case imo
Right.
> I'm thinking we should at least warn when some flags like this one
> differ and when that difference has an impact
>>> Gah. I was going to commit this separately but forgot. Sorry about that.
>>>
>> K, why does this fix the test? seems weird that we had an infinite
>> loop before and changing the flags gets rid of it?
>
> It wasn't an infinite loop but an ICE in the tree caches. The
> different options were
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 14:10, Gabriel Charette wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 17:47, wrote:
>>> So if I understand correctly, the reference system doesn't work yet, you
>>> just put out the design in this patch and you'll fill up function
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 17:47, wrote:
>> So if I understand correctly, the reference system doesn't work yet, you
>> just put out the design in this patch and you'll fill up functionality
>> in an upcoming patch so that's it's clearer what yo
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 17:47, wrote:
> So if I understand correctly, the reference system doesn't work yet, you
> just put out the design in this patch and you'll fill up functionality
> in an upcoming patch so that's it's clearer what you're adding?
Right, the 'if (0)' in pph_in_includes() disa
So if I understand correctly, the reference system doesn't work yet, you
just put out the design in this patch and you'll fill up functionality
in an upcoming patch so that's it's clearer what you're adding?
Cheers,
Gab
http://codereview.appspot.com/4847044/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c
File
