On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:> Unfortunately, yes. See PR4542. Progress has been made recently > though -- the optimizers are now ready. The main things left to do > is to update the documentation and update the testsuite to account > for the change in the meaning of a module without a targetdata string. > > Dan > >So in the near future, the optimizers won't do any target-specific transformations in the absence of module target data?
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Unfortunately, yes. See PR4542. Progress has been made recently >> though -- the optimizers are now ready. The main things left to do >> is to update the documentation and update the testsuite to account >> for the change in the meaning of a module without a targetdata string. >> >> Dan >> >> > > So in the near future, the optimizers won't do any target-specific > transformations in the absence of module target data? >Also, has anyone passed a target data string to "opt" with -targetdata? I'm trying that out now and getting "Too many positional arguments specified!". I've tried escaping all the dashes in the target data string... no luck
On Oct 20, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Unfortunately, yes. See PR4542. Progress has been made recently >> though -- the optimizers are now ready. The main things left to do >> is to update the documentation and update the testsuite to account >> for the change in the meaning of a module without a targetdata string. >> >> Dan >> >> > > So in the near future, the optimizers won't do any target-specific > transformations in the absence of module target data?As near as when someone steps up to do the work :-). I'm not actively working on this myself right now. Dan
On Oct 20, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >>> Unfortunately, yes. See PR4542. Progress has been made recently >>> though -- the optimizers are now ready. The main things left to do >>> is to update the documentation and update the testsuite to account >>> for the change in the meaning of a module without a targetdata string. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >> >> So in the near future, the optimizers won't do any target-specific >> transformations in the absence of module target data? >> > > Also, has anyone passed a target data string to "opt" with > -targetdata? I'm trying that out now and getting "Too many positional > arguments specified!". I've tried escaping all the dashes in the > target data string... no luckIt's broken. It's probably easily fixable if you have a good idea of what the user interface should be. Dan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:> > On Oct 20, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >>> Unfortunately, yes. See PR4542. Progress has been made recently >>> though -- the optimizers are now ready. The main things left to do >>> is to update the documentation and update the testsuite to account >>> for the change in the meaning of a module without a targetdata string. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >> >> So in the near future, the optimizers won't do any target-specific >> transformations in the absence of module target data? > > As near as when someone steps up to do the work :-). I'm not > actively working on this myself right now. > > Dan > >I uncovered a few cases where optimizers still crash when the target data pass isn't registered, and I'll send patches as I can.