https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
Recent GCC 5 accepts both lto and no-lto. However, they work on a per-file
rather then on a per-function basis...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code, lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
Can you expand on those shortcomings/bugs?
There are LTO-related issues in GCC and LD, such as PR43038, PR56536 and
others. Not all problems will be fixed soon, and more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
It was discovered by accident. However, if it does work, why no-lto (which is
so much more useful) should not work?
