From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47756138CD2 for ; Mon, 25 May 2015 12:30:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F6DEE0894; Mon, 25 May 2015 12:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6531AE081E for ; Mon, 25 May 2015 12:30:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YwrW2-0002gJ-Bx for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 25 May 2015 14:29:58 +0200 Received: from pc123.math.cas.cz ([147.231.88.123]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 25 May 2015 14:29:58 +0200 Received: from martin by pc123.math.cas.cz with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 25 May 2015 14:29:58 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Status of Gcc-5.1.0? Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 12:29:47 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20150520145535.a5fb85c95fb51ddfbacf9d7e@comcast.net> <555F76EB.6030104@xunil.at> <20150522174107.df90e9ac19e0ce7d2075fdd8@comcast.net> <20150523124802.6bd085304b87689bdcb13b4c@comcast.net> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pc123.math.cas.cz User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: bbf711ad-5291-45be-b3e8-b1ebaf06f7f8 X-Archives-Hash: f71537e440f56fd53970250944ff909b Frank Peters wrote: > Martin Vaeth wrote: >> >> My experience is quite the opposite: With graphite, I had >> many random crashes (and seldom also unexplainable compiler >> errors which vanish without graphite). > > My whole system has been compiled with graphite since its introduction > and I've never seen any problems. I think it can depend on the processor you compile for. For instance, with an athlon, graphite caused much more trouble than with an i3. > What gcc flags are you using to enable graphite? > > Usually, -floop-interchange, -floop-strip-mine, and -floop-block are > enough. By "graphite", I mean these 3 flags plus -fgraphite-identity (the latter should be rather harmless, I suppose). > Regarding LTO, I experienced a severe problem with ghostscipt due to > what I later traced to LTO: > > http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691768 Are you sure that the problem remained with LTO and *without* graphite in *all* of the libraries which are used? Namely, such kind of bugs is what I traced back to graphite in several cases (which I meanwhile forgot, since I didn't report bugs for which I found that graphite was the only cause; after finding 5 or 6 times that the cause of runtime problems was graphite, I simply got tired of it, especially since the benefits are tiny; sometimes, I even had slight slowdowns.)