search for: addlateltooptimizationpass

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "addlateltooptimizationpass".

2015 Mar 19
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Controlling the LTO optimization level
+ OptLevel = opt[1] - '0'; Please check and reject things like -OX at least in the gold plugin. Can you add a test showing that * createLowerBitSetsPass is run at -O0 * the addLateLTOOptimizationPasses passes are run at -O1, but not -O0 I think the patch is fine otherwise, but wait for a review from someone on the ld64 side (Duncan, Manman or Bob for example). Thanks, Rafael On 19 March 2015 at 15:55, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:32:...
2015 Mar 19
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Controlling the LTO optimization level
...e consumers share some kind of common flag parsing API though. At the moment they're different enough that it's simplest to just write out the check in each one. > > > > Can you add a test showing that > > > > * createLowerBitSetsPass is run at -O0 > > * the addLateLTOOptimizationPasses passes are run at -O1, but not -O0 Done. Thanks, -- Peter -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-libLTO-llvm-lto-gold-Introduce-flag-for-controlling-.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 18265 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/p...
2015 Mar 19
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Controlling the LTO optimization level
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM Rafael EspĂ­ndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Having the analogous of -O0/-O1/-O2/-O3 for the LTO pipeline makes > sense I think. > > I agree that something along option number 2 is probably the best. > Some questions: > > * Should "clang -O3 foo.o -o foo" use LTO with -O3? > * Should "clang foo.o -o