search for: compiler_us

...Teresa, we should probably do #2 to preserve behavior for now. On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Steven, > > I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting > these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion > around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you > mention). > > What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do > this when promoting internal linkage to external due to importing. I'm n...

...roperty. As a result, it introduces unnecessary weak external symbols and weak external are not good for performance on darwin platforms. I have few proposed solutions for this issue but I don't know which one works the best for none macho platforms and other LTO clients like lld. 1. Use llvm.compiler_used. As far as I know, the linkage promote are just there to keep the symbol through internalize and codegen so adding them to compiler used should solve this issue. I was told that there was some objections to do that in the first place. Is it because the globals added to compiler used is ignored b...

Isn't #2 actually changing the behavior by changing the visibility while llvm.compiler_used seems actually closest to current behavior to me? The visibility hidden would break comparison of function as you mentioned, which is not the case with auto-hide if I didn't miss anything. -- Mehdi 2018-02-07 11:29 GMT-08:00 Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:...

Hi Steven, I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you mention). What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do this when promoting internal linkage to external due to importing. I'm not an expert on how this...

...es unnecessary weak > external symbols and weak external are not good for performance on darwin > platforms. > > I have few proposed solutions for this issue but I don't know which one > works the best for none macho platforms and other LTO clients like lld. > > 1. Use llvm.compiler_used. > As far as I know, the linkage promote are just there to keep the symbol > through internalize and codegen so adding them to compiler used should > solve this issue. I was told that there was some objections to do that in > the first place. Is it because the globals added to compile...

...ehavior for now. > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Hi Steven, > > I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you mention). > > What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do this when promoting internal linkage to external due to importing. I'm not an expert o...

...o preserve behavior for now. > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi Steven, >> >> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting >> these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion >> around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you >> mention). >> >> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do >> this when promoting internal linkage to external due to...

...;> >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> Hi Steven, >> >> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you mention). >> >> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do this when promoting internal linkage to external due to importing. I'm not an...

...;> >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Steven, >>> >>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting >>> these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion >>> around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you >>> mention). >>> >>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do >>> this when promoting internal linkage...

...eb 7, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev < >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Steven, >>>> >>>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting >>>> these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion >>>> around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you >>>> mention). >>>> >>>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do >>>> this when promot...

...gt; On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> Hi Steven, >>> >>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you mention). >>> >>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do this when promoting internal linkage to external due to importing. I'm...

...eresa Johnson via llvm-dev < >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Steven, >>>>> >>>>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting >>>>> these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion >>>>> around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you >>>>> mention). >>>>> >>>>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do >>>>&...

...Feb 7, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>>> Hi Steven, >>>> >>>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you mention). >>>> >>>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do this when promoting internal linkage to external due to importing....

...at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Steven, >>>>> >>>>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you mention). >>>>> >>>>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do this when promoting internal linkage to external due to im...

...ev < >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Steven, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about >>>>>> putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier >>>>>> discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on >>>>>> optimization as you mention). >>>>>> >>>>>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already >...

...>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Steven, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about >>>>>>> putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier >>>>>>> discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on >>>>>>> optimization as you mention). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)?...

...Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Steven, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you mention). >>>>>> >>>>>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do this when promoting internal linkage to external d...

...ev < >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Steven, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about >>>>>> putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier >>>>>> discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on >>>>>> optimization as you mention). >>>>>> >>>>>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already >...

...on via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Steven, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you mention). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do this when promoting internal linkage to ex...

..., it introduces unnecessary weak external symbols and weak external are not good for performance on darwin platforms. > > I have few proposed solutions for this issue but I don't know which one works the best for none macho platforms and other LTO clients like lld. > > 1. Use llvm.compiler_used. > As far as I know, the linkage promote are just there to keep the symbol through internalize and codegen so adding them to compiler used should solve this issue. I was told that there was some objections to do that in the first place. Is it because the globals added to compiler used is ignor...