search for: ltoing

Hi, Encounter a compilation issue related to c++. Software versions: - gcc 4.7.4 - llvm git commit 98a1ca117e6743dd7f2d505443a96f591d083eab Build log: Scanning dependencies of target LLVMLTO [ 53%] Building CXX object lib/LTO/CMakeFiles/LLVMLTO.dir/Caching.cpp.o /tmp/pkgs/llvm/lib/LTO/Caching.cpp: In lambda function: /tmp/pkgs/llvm/lib/LTO/Caching.cpp:74:7: error: looser throw specifier for

Please send any comments. As mentioned at the end I will follow up with some patches as soon as they are cleaned up and I create some test cases. RFC: Safe Whole Program Devirtualization Enablement =================================================== High Level Summary ------------------ The goal of the changes described in this RFC is to support aggressive Whole Program Devirtualization without

I met with the Propeller team today (we work for the same company but it was my first time meeting two members on the team:) ). One thing I have been reassured: * There is no general disassembly work. General disassembly work would assuredly frighten off developers. (Inherently unreliable, memory usage heavy and difficult to deal with CFI, debug information, etc) Minimal amount of plumbing work

Hi:     I want to learn  how LTO and thinLTO work? But I'm confused how lld invoked either library. How can I find it in lld. Should i be familiar with lld source code? And i also think if there is some easy test case and with step-by- step debugging or some log messages can help me learn this? Is there some method can do stuff like this?   Thank you very

Hi, I have a question regarding the behavior of weak symbol resolution in LTO: Suppose there are weak definitions in both the source code and some native lib. In non-LTO path, we will use the version from source code. In LTO path, LLVM may discard the definition as it has "linkeonce" linkage type. So the native version will be selected by linker. Now, non-LTO and LTO build may have

Hi, Imagine that your backend has valid asm instruction written like this: "%x mnem %y, %z" And user puts it as inline assembler: __asm__ ("%x mnem %y, %z"); It can not be parsed with current llvm asm parser, because it starts with % (moreover it has mnemonic in second place) Say you written pass, that makes it "mnem %x, %y, %z". Now this guy can be parsed, but

> > > I often use the gold plugin's also-emit-llvm option to verify the final > LLVM bitcode of a program. However, I realized that the gold plugin generates >> the >> bitcode file before running LTO optimizations, such that the changes >> performed >> by LTO are not reflected in the bitcode file. >> >> What is the reason for this behavior?

Is there a way to get object files from the LTO step before the linker performs the final link phase? What I'd like to do is given these bitcode files: a.lto.o, b.lto.o, c.lto.o run LTO on them and get out the object files: a.o, b.o, c.o (These .o files hold the code that is sent directly to the final link phase.) If there doesn't currently exist a way, is such a thing possible?

Hi, This is really basic block level pass. It is no difference what is level, problem is the same. After fixing for asm parser, assembler syntax is no more valid for backend, without processing with asm parser. May be it will be solution to process inline asm on insn printer level to remove syntax fixes. But just switch it off without lto will make compiler do less job P.S. sorry for dup,

I tried building llvm, clang, lld, lldb from the 3.9 svn release branch with LTO, and some of the results were unexpected. I first tried to rebuild llvm with llvm-3.9, which has ThinLTO, by providing -DLLVM_ENABLE_LTO=Thin, but that failed very quickly, so I fell back to building with -DLLVM_ENABLE_LTO=On and using the system CC/CXX (gcc 6.1). The resulting installed build is many times bigger

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 10, 2016, at 3:03 AM, Carsten Mattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I tried building llvm, clang, lld, lldb from the 3.9 svn release >> branch with LTO, and some of the results were unexpected. >> >> I first tried to rebuild llvm

Hi, Thanks for the info, If i only want to run performance test on benchmarks for LTO and Thin LTO enabled target, Can u suggest ways to do it ? I want to do it at my end. Thanks, Siddharth On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > I've only measured performance on x86. There are some old results for SPEC > cpu2006 in the blog post here:

Hi, In LTO we have AsmParser that process inline assembler instructions to MCInst and I want to fix some inline assembler in order to conform its rules (do not start with non-identifier and so on) because asm syntax of our backend allows some incompatible patterns. In order to do this I am adding IR-level target-specific pass. But those fixes shall not be applied when there is no AsmParser later

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:30 PM Quentin Colombet <quentin.colombet at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > > 2018-08-06 16:13 GMT-07:00 Bill Wendling via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > Is there a way to get object files from the LTO step before the linker > > performs the final link phase? What I'd like to do is given these bitcode > >

I am wondering how the following issue was handled for libLTO? We have a working patch to implement the FSF gcc LTO on darwin which now passes all of the liblto testsuite but are seeing linker issues with larger programs like aermod... as -arch x86_64 -force_cpusubtype_ALL -o aermod.o aermod.s /usr/bin/ld -dynamic -arch x86_64 -macosx_version_min 10.6.3 -weak_reference_mismatches

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 2016, at 9:28 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello Mentors, > > > > I have a very naive idea to get IPRA woking at link time and thus > extending its scope to intermodule. I seek some help if it seems to be a > feasible

Hi, I have tried to build libjpeg-turbo <https://github.com/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg-turbo> with LTO in LLVM, using both clangbut get many errors in lld that look like the following: ld: error: undefined symbol: jpeg_std_error >>> referenced by jcstest.c:76 >>> lto.tmp:(main) ld: error: undefined symbol: jpeg_CreateCompress >>> referenced by

Yes running LLVM performance test suite with LTO and Thin LTO enabled. Thanks, Siddharth On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > I'm not completely sure what you are asking. Are you looking for > performance benchmarks to use for LTO and ThinLTO testing? Or are you > asking how to build/run with LTO and ThinLTO? Are you asking how to

The Apple ld (shipped with Xcode, open-source) saves the 3 files if -save-temps is applied: - xxx.lto.bc : the merged bit-code before IPA - xxx.lto.opt.bc: the optimized bit-code of the *.lto.bc - xxx.lto.o : the object file of xxx.lto.bc I think it is better way to go, often time we need IR both after and after the transformation. On 6/4/13 3:37 AM, Jonas Wagner wrote: > >

Hi, I have a module pass and I hope to use it to optimize a real-world program. I need LTO，and I have got LTO plugin. But How can I add my passes to LTO Pass. I can't find solution. What should I do? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200422/76d2b046/attachment.html>