| 1 |
Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> My experience is quite the opposite: With graphite, I had |
| 5 |
>> many random crashes (and seldom also unexplainable compiler |
| 6 |
>> errors which vanish without graphite). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> My whole system has been compiled with graphite since its introduction |
| 9 |
> and I've never seen any problems. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I think it can depend on the processor you compile for. |
| 12 |
For instance, with an athlon, graphite caused much more trouble |
| 13 |
than with an i3. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> What gcc flags are you using to enable graphite? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Usually, -floop-interchange, -floop-strip-mine, and -floop-block are |
| 18 |
> enough. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
By "graphite", I mean these 3 flags plus -fgraphite-identity |
| 21 |
(the latter should be rather harmless, I suppose). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Regarding LTO, I experienced a severe problem with ghostscipt due to |
| 24 |
> what I later traced to LTO: |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691768 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Are you sure that the problem remained with LTO and *without* |
| 29 |
graphite in *all* of the libraries which are used? Namely, such |
| 30 |
kind of bugs is what I traced back to graphite in several cases |
| 31 |
(which I meanwhile forgot, since I didn't report bugs for which |
| 32 |
I found that graphite was the only cause; after finding 5 or 6 |
| 33 |
times that the cause of runtime problems was graphite, I simply |
| 34 |
got tired of it, especially since the benefits are tiny; sometimes, |
| 35 |
I even had slight slowdowns.) |
Archives