search for: addlateltooptimizationpass

+ 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:...

...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...

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM Rafael Espíndola < 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