search for: lto2

...es/Makefile2:24606: recipe for target 'tools/llvm-dwp/CMakeFiles/llvm-dwp.dir/all' failed make[1]: *** [tools/llvm-dwp/CMakeFiles/llvm-dwp.dir/all] Error 2 clang: error: unable to execute command: Killed clang: error: linker command failed due to signal (use -v to see invocation) tools/llvm-lto2/CMakeFiles/llvm-lto2.dir/build.make:210: recipe for target 'bin/llvm-lto2' failed make[2]: *** [bin/llvm-lto2] Error 254 CMakeFiles/Makefile2:26436: recipe for target 'tools/llvm-lto2/CMakeFiles/llvm-lto2.dir/all' failed make[1]: *** [tools/llvm-lto2/CMakeFiles/llvm-lto2.dir/all] Er...

...ols/llvm-dwp/CMakeFiles/llvm-dwp.dir/all' failed > > make[1]: *** [tools/llvm-dwp/CMakeFiles/llvm-dwp.dir/all] Error 2 > > clang: error: unable to execute command: Killed > > clang: error: linker command failed due to signal (use -v to see > invocation) > > tools/llvm-lto2/CMakeFiles/llvm-lto2.dir/build.make:210: recipe for > target 'bin/llvm-lto2' failed > > make[2]: *** [bin/llvm-lto2] Error 254 > > CMakeFiles/Makefile2:26436: recipe for target > 'tools/llvm-lto2/CMakeFiles/llvm-lto2.dir/all' failed > > make[1]: *** [tools/ll...

.../all' failed > >> > make[1]: *** [tools/llvm-dwp/CMakeFiles/llvm-dwp.dir/all] Error 2 > >> > clang: error: unable to execute command: Killed > >> > clang: error: linker command failed due to signal (use -v to see > invocation) > >> > tools/llvm-lto2/CMakeFiles/llvm-lto2.dir/build.make:210: recipe for > target 'bin/llvm-lto2' failed > >> > make[2]: *** [bin/llvm-lto2] Error 254 > >> > CMakeFiles/Makefile2:26436: recipe for target > 'tools/llvm-lto2/CMakeFiles/llvm-lto2.dir/all' failed > >>...

Devang removed the old llvm/tools/lto directory and renamed lto2 -> lto. The end result of this is that 'svn up' may complain. If you get an error about this from svn, just do: $ rm -rf llvm/tools/lto* $ svn up llvm/tools to fix it, -Chris

...any optimization, I think we should focus at least for the time being on >>>>>> supporting reading the summary from assembly exactly where we currently >>>>>> read in the summary from bitcode: >>>>>> 1) For the thin link (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto2 or llvm-lto, which >>>>>> currently have to be preceded by "opt -module-summary/-thinlto-bc" to >>>>>> generate an index, but could just build it from assembly instead). >>>>>> 2) For the LTO backends (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto which...

Hi I have encountered a module verification failure when running 2 files with thin-lto (I hit this bug in the link step in LTO on a really large program and I reduced to this test case). ~/llvmfb/build-debug/bin/llvm-lto2 run -o c a.o b.o -r a.o,c,px -r b.o,a,px -r b.o,b,px -r a.o,gv -r b.o,gv Called function is not the same type as the call! %2 = call i1 bitcast (i1 (%struct.TA*)* @b to i1 (%0*)*)(%struct.TA* %0) in function a LLVM ERROR: Broken function found, compilation aborted! My understanding why this is...

...tion, I think we should focus at least for the time being >>>>>>> on supporting reading the summary from assembly exactly where we currently >>>>>>> read in the summary from bitcode: >>>>>>> 1) For the thin link (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto2 or llvm-lto, >>>>>>> which currently have to be preceded by "opt -module-summary/-thinlto-bc" to >>>>>>> generate an index, but could just build it from assembly instead). >>>>>>> 2) For the LTO backends (e.g. tools such as ll...

We are migrating an LTO2 library off Veritas and NTBackup on a Windows Server to a Linux Server with either Bacula or Amanda. Originally, the Windows server used scripts to sync changes from various other Windows servers using Robocopy to a locally attached set of volumes, then ran the backup nightly (Full's were alway...

...spection, it seems there's so real way to invoke the new pass manager path ('runNewPMPasses' in lib/LTO/LTOBackend.cpp) during link step. 'Conf.UseNewPM' is used to select the new PM in LTOBackend.cpp, but only two places in the code sets it. The first is through the 'llvm-lto2' tool, and the second during the compile step with '-fthinlto-index=<value>'. Neither are invoked during LTO/thinLTO link. tools/llvm-lto2/llvm-lto2.cpp ... static cl::opt<bool> UseNewPM("use-new-pm", cl::desc("Run LTO passes using the new pa...

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:11 AM Charles Saternos via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hey @chandlerc and @dblaikie, > > Any updates on this in relation to "[PATCH] D34080: [ThinLTO] Add > dump-summary command to llvm-lto2 tool"? > Sorry you've kind of got stuck in the middle of this - but I'm still hoping to hear/understand the pushback on implementing this as a first class .ll construct with serialization and deserialization support. I think Peter mentioned he didn't think this was the right p...

...ss, try creating a small test case with a very hot loop that iterates many times. Let me know if you are still having trouble. While the llvm-dis serialization is being discussed, I suppose at the very least this can go in with the rest of the existing YAML summary dumping and get emitted from llvm-lto2 using the patch Peter attached. Peter - do you want to add that to llvm-lto2 so that we have a way of dumping the existing YAML supported summary info to stdout, or would you rather have Charles take that one over and submit it (probably just needs a test case). Teresa On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:16...

...t; > > Hi > > > > I have encountered a module verification failure when running 2 files > > with thin-lto (I hit this bug in the link step in LTO on a really > > large program and I reduced to this test case). > > > > > > ~/llvmfb/build-debug/bin/llvm-lto2 run -o c a.o b.o -r a.o,c,px -r > > b.o,a,px -r b.o,b,px -r a.o,gv -r b.o,gv > > Called function is not the same type as the call! > > %2 = call i1 bitcast (i1 (%struct.TA*)* @b to i1 (%0*)*)(%struct.TA* %0) > > in function a > > LLVM ERROR: Broken function found, c...

...the server version? Anyway this seems to be a bug in subversion. Cheers, Gabor PS: http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=79361 On Jul 1, 5:27 am, Chris Lattner <clatt... at apple.com> wrote: > Devang removed the old llvm/tools/lto directory and renamed lto2 ->   > lto.  The end result of this is that 'svn up' may complain.  If you   > get an error about this from svn, just do: > > $ rm -rf llvm/tools/lto* > $ svn up llvm/tools > > to fix it, > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > LLVM...

...any optimization, I think we should focus at least for the time being on >>>>>> supporting reading the summary from assembly exactly where we currently >>>>>> read in the summary from bitcode: >>>>>> 1) For the thin link (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto2 or llvm-lto, which >>>>>> currently have to be preceded by "opt -module-summary/-thinlto-bc" to >>>>>> generate an index, but could just build it from assembly instead). >>>>>> 2) For the LTO backends (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto which...

...find any entry in the doc that helps me understand how to reduce the size of the binaries produced. Is this normal ? Does any one has some hint to prevent this ? Here are the sizes of the binaries: 1.9G clang-7 1.6G clang-check 1.2G clang-tidy 1.1G opt 1.1G bugpoint 1.1G llvm-lto 1.1G llvm-lto2 1018M llc 1015M c-index-test 992M dsymutil 992M llvm-isel-fuzzer 989M llvm-opt-fuzzer 987M llvm-dwp 937M llvm-c-test 653M clang-import-test 512M clangd 493M arcmt-test 484M lli 480M clang-query 473M clang-refactor 469M clang-move 468M global-symbol-builder 467M clang-change-namespace...

...gt;>> any optimization, I think we should focus at least for the time being on >>>>> supporting reading the summary from assembly exactly where we currently >>>>> read in the summary from bitcode: >>>>> 1) For the thin link (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto2 or llvm-lto, which >>>>> currently have to be preceded by "opt -module-summary/-thinlto-bc" to >>>>> generate an index, but could just build it from assembly instead). >>>>> 2) For the LTO backends (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto which can consume...

...n, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:11 AM Charles Saternos via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Hey @chandlerc and @dblaikie, >>> >>> Any updates on this in relation to "[PATCH] D34080: [ThinLTO] Add >>> dump-summary command to llvm-lto2 tool"? >>> >> >> Sorry you've kind of got stuck in the middle of this - but I'm still >> hoping to hear/understand the pushback on implementing this as a first >> class .ll construct with serialization and deserialization support. >> >> I th...

...ful/convenient to be able to see the summary in the llvm-dis >> output. >> > > There are two things: > 1) the format of the summary > 2) where to add the dumper > I'm not too concerned about 2 (I wouldn't add it to llvm-dis, but rather > as a subcommand to llvm-lto2, but I don't have a strong opinion about that). > > So that leaves the text based summary format. We need a format that is > easily parseable so that we can test components that manipulate summaries > in isolation. That is what the YAML format is. Why add a second format that > i...

...reduce the size of the binaries produced. > > Is this normal ? Does any one has some hint to prevent this ? > > Here are the sizes of the binaries: > > 1.9G clang-7 > 1.6G clang-check > 1.2G clang-tidy > 1.1G opt > 1.1G bugpoint > 1.1G llvm-lto > 1.1G llvm-lto2 > 1018M llc > 1015M c-index-test > 992M dsymutil > 992M llvm-isel-fuzzer > 989M llvm-opt-fuzzer > 987M llvm-dwp > 937M llvm-c-test > 653M clang-import-test > 512M clangd > 493M arcmt-test > 484M lli > 480M clang-query > 473M clang-refactor > 469...

...t does >>>> any optimization, I think we should focus at least for the time being on >>>> supporting reading the summary from assembly exactly where we currently >>>> read in the summary from bitcode: >>>> 1) For the thin link (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto2 or llvm-lto, which >>>> currently have to be preceded by "opt -module-summary/-thinlto-bc" to >>>> generate an index, but could just build it from assembly instead). >>>> 2) For the LTO backends (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto which can consume >>&gt...