Re: [lto] Reader-writer compatibility?
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Toon Moenet...@moene.org wrote: Diego Novillo wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:42, Ryan Mansfieldrmansfi...@qnx.com wrote: Is it required that the same compiler that generated lto objects be used to read them? I've come across a couple ICEs with the current revision reading lto objects created by a slightly older version but same configuration. Is this simply invalid usage of my part? It's likely. How much drift between the two revisions? Can you recreate the ICE if you write and read with the exact same revision? If so, please file a bug. Please add version checking. gfortran's module files (extension .mod) that are generated from source files that contain MODULE ... END MODULE constructs *now* contain version information. I still get occasionally beaten by picking up modules from 4.3 that don't have this - you'll get all sorts of unintelligible error messages that just distract from what's really wrong. There is bytecode version information - we just didn't bother to bump it on the branch. Richard.
Re: [lto] Reader-writer compatibility?
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:42, Ryan Mansfieldrmansfi...@qnx.com wrote: Is it required that the same compiler that generated lto objects be used to read them? I've come across a couple ICEs with the current revision reading lto objects created by a slightly older version but same configuration. Is this simply invalid usage of my part? It's likely. How much drift between the two revisions? Can you recreate the ICE if you write and read with the exact same revision? If so, please file a bug. Diego.
Re: [lto] Reader-writer compatibility?
Diego Novillo wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:42, Ryan Mansfieldrmansfi...@qnx.com wrote: Is it required that the same compiler that generated lto objects be used to read them? I've come across a couple ICEs with the current revision reading lto objects created by a slightly older version but same configuration. Is this simply invalid usage of my part? It's likely. How much drift between the two revisions? Can you recreate the ICE if you write and read with the exact same revision? If so, please file a bug. The objects were created with rev 15 and being read using 151271. No, I can't reproduce the ICE using the same version. Thanks for confirming this is not expected to work. Regards, Ryan Mansfield
Re: [lto] Reader-writer compatibility?
Ryan Mansfield rmansfi...@qnx.com writes: The objects were created with rev 15 and being read using 151271. No, I can't reproduce the ICE using the same version. Thanks for confirming this is not expected to work. Is it the intent that this work properly in the future? It is not absurd to imagine that someone with a treeful of .o files might suffer an unexpected compiler upgrade before a later reuse/relink attempt. - FChE
Re: [lto] Reader-writer compatibility?
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 14:32, Frank Ch. Eiglerf...@redhat.com wrote: Ryan Mansfield rmansfi...@qnx.com writes: The objects were created with rev 15 and being read using 151271. No, I can't reproduce the ICE using the same version. Thanks for confirming this is not expected to work. Is it the intent that this work properly in the future? Yes. We likely want to maintain streamer compatibility within the same major release. I actually don't think we'll change the bytecode format too much. It will mostly depend on how much gimple changes in a single release. Clearly, we need better version drift detection. Diego.
Re: [lto] Reader-writer compatibility?
Diego Novillo wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:42, Ryan Mansfieldrmansfi...@qnx.com wrote: Is it required that the same compiler that generated lto objects be used to read them? I've come across a couple ICEs with the current revision reading lto objects created by a slightly older version but same configuration. Is this simply invalid usage of my part? It's likely. How much drift between the two revisions? Can you recreate the ICE if you write and read with the exact same revision? If so, please file a bug. Please add version checking. gfortran's module files (extension .mod) that are generated from source files that contain MODULE ... END MODULE constructs *now* contain version information. I still get occasionally beaten by picking up modules from 4.3 that don't have this - you'll get all sorts of unintelligible error messages that just distract from what's really wrong. -- Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands At home: http://moene.org/~toon/ Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html
