The following patch temporarily disable some of the checking which is
not fully 'lipo' aware. It will be checked into google/main and
further cleanups will follow.

David
2011-05-10  David Li  <davi...@google.com>

	* cgraphunit.c	(revision 173635) (verify_cgraph_node):
	(cgraph_mark_functions_to_output):
	* tree-cfg.c	(revision 173635) (verify_stmt):

Index: cgraphunit.c
===================================================================
--- cgraphunit.c	(revision 173635)
+++ cgraphunit.c	(working copy)
@@ -480,6 +480,10 @@ verify_cgraph_node (struct cgraph_node *
   if (seen_error ())
     return;
 
+  /* Disable checking for LIPO for now.  */
+  if (L_IPO_COMP_MODE)
+    return;
+
   timevar_push (TV_CGRAPH_VERIFY);
   for (e = node->callees; e; e = e->next_callee)
     if (e->aux)
@@ -1315,7 +1319,8 @@ cgraph_mark_functions_to_output (void)
 		 are inside partition, we can end up not removing the body since we no longer
 		 have analyzed node pointing to it.  */
 	      && !node->in_other_partition
-	      && !(DECL_EXTERNAL (decl) || cgraph_is_aux_decl_external (node)))
+	      && !(DECL_EXTERNAL (decl) || cgraph_is_aux_decl_external (node))
+	      && !L_IPO_COMP_MODE)
 	    {
 	      dump_cgraph_node (stderr, node);
 	      internal_error ("failed to reclaim unneeded function");
@@ -1331,7 +1336,7 @@ cgraph_mark_functions_to_output (void)
 
     }
 #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
-  if (check_same_comdat_groups)
+  if (check_same_comdat_groups && !L_IPO_COMP_MODE)
     for (node = cgraph_nodes; node; node = node->next)
       if (node->same_comdat_group && !node->process)
 	{
Index: tree-cfg.c
===================================================================
--- tree-cfg.c	(revision 173635)
+++ tree-cfg.c	(working copy)
@@ -4159,6 +4159,10 @@ verify_stmt (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
   gimple stmt = gsi_stmt (*gsi);
   int lp_nr;
 
+  /* TODO: Disable for now.  */
+  if (L_IPO_COMP_MODE)
+    return false;
+
   if (is_gimple_omp (stmt))
     {
       /* OpenMP directives are validated by the FE and never operated

Reply via email to