Frank Peters <frank.pet...@comcast.net> wrote: > Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> 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.)
