On 13.01.26 03:15, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 1:32 PM Frank Scheiner <[email protected]> wrote: >> [...] >> Posting as RFC, as I'm unsure if this is the right approach to "fix" >> the testsuite in regard to LTO support. > > This is the correct approach. > The problem was introduced with r10-2142-gec8ac265ff21fb which added > the testcases named Og- being handled specially. > Before that commit $LTO_TORTURE_OPTIONS was used for all testcases > (still is used for the general ones) which also uses the same check of > check_effective_target_lto .
Great, thanks for the confirmation! I already wondered why that check was only effective for the general ones. But it made clear how it can be fixed for the other cases, too. Does your confirmation "auto-promote" that RFC patch to "normal" patch or should I send another patch also mentioning that this fixes r10-2142-gec8ac265ff21fb? **** BTW, I have not yet found out how to derive a revision like the just mentioned one from a git commit hash. I know that it includes a shortened commit hash and I assume the major GCC version number at the start, but how can I in general determine such a revision from a full git commit hash? Cheers, Frank
