On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
There is a complete list here [0], but those ones are, in my opinion,
very nice:
- The new link time optimiser.
- Improved C++0x support.
- Plugins support.
My understanding is that lto in 4.5 is not quite there yet. Not that
I've tried it or anything.
I don't share your understanding. I tried it for some builds.
I've tried it on the work repository, and lto ICEs the compiler. Plus I
get 2 other independant ICEs that I've not had time to reduce (hence the
lack of bug report yet).
Though this happens with the gcc-4.5 in unstable, I've not tried with
the one from experimental yet.
Okay, it's not strictly speaking an ICE but I get, even with the one from
experimental:
qdb/qoutput-c.c:424:1: sorry, unimplemented: gimple bytecode streams do not support the optimization attribute
It's just that LTO isn't that a compelling reason, it's not 100%
production ready. The plugin infrastructure is though. But you're citing
dragonegg, and last time I checked, you had to patch gcc to export one
more symbol. If you haven't applied that patch (if it's still required)
your argument is moot. But I agree the plugin infrastructure *is* a
compelling reason.