Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "createlowerbitsetspass".
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...
2015 Mar 19
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Controlling the LTO optimization level
...the three consumers?
Maybe. That might wait until the 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 b...
2015 Mar 19
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Controlling the LTO optimization level
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