On 4/23/21 1:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 4/23/21 12:59 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
True, the question is on how much detail we have to pay attention to.
Agree with that.
For us of course the build-id solution works fine. And hopefully the
days of PCH are counted...
Yes.
I have a tentative patch that emits the attached checksum.h header file.
We also include flags in the checksum:
...
build/genchecksum$(build_exeext) $(C_OBJS) $(BACKEND) $(LIBDEPS) \
checksum-options > cc1-checksum.c.tmp && \
...
$ cat checksum-options
g++ -no-pie -g -DIN_GCC -fPIC -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wno-error=format-diag -Wmissing-format-attribute
-Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros
-Wno-overlength-strings -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -static-libstdc++
-static-libgcc
Can we ignore them in the checksum calculation?
Martin
Richi, what do you think about this part?
Thanks,
Martin
