Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "d24644".
Did you mean:
24644
2016 Sep 30
3
(Thin)LTO llvm build
...del, on ELF I’d expect the LTO
> > equivalent of -ffunction-sections to be used (I don’t know if Gold
> > and the gold-plugin have such an option though).
>
>
> It does, but I found you have to pass the options to the plugin to get them
> to kick in for any *LTO compile. See D24644 for my proposed fix. To
> workaround, pass them to the plugin-opt:
> -Wl,--gc-sections -Wl,-plugin-opt,-function-sections
> -Wl,-plugin-opt,-data-sections
> Not sure if there is any benefit to passing them also on the command line
> (-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections), but probably...
2016 Sep 30
2
(Thin)LTO llvm build
> On Sep 30, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>> I just built a stage-1 compiler from the 3.9 release bits and built
>> the lldb from head sources which worked fine. Let me try again using
>> 3.9 build compiler to build 3.9 bits.
>
2016 Oct 05
3
ThinLTO: passing TargetOptions to LLVMgold.so
Hi all,
I am trying to figure out the best way to deal with non-default
TargetMachine options when using ThinLTO with the LLVMgold.so plugin. (I'm
adding support for ThinLTO to the LDC D compiler)
Things like the target triple, target CPU and target CPU features, some
floating point options like unsafe-fp-math, etc., those are (or can be
made) explicit in the IR. Is that the way to go? We