search for: rl320199

Hi, On 13/11/2017 14:47, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Graham, > > I created a bug report with a reproducer for the failures I’ve got: > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35288 > That bug should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL320199 Cheers, Florian

...On 13/11/2017 14:47, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Hi Graham, >> >> I created a bug report with a reproducer for the failures I’ve got: >> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35288 >> >> > That bug should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL320199 > > Cheers, > Florian > <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> > Thanks for fixing this Florian. Now that this is no longer blocking, are there other concerns over enabling PI by default? Evgeny, did you get a chance to look into the code-size regressions o...

....org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi, On 13/11/2017 14:47, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev wrote: Hi Graham, I created a bug report with a reproducer for the failures I’ve got: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35288 That bug should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL320199 Cheers, Florian Thanks for fixing this Florian. Now that this is no longer blocking, are there other concerns over enabling PI by default? Evgeny, did you get a chance to look into the code-size regressions on AArch targets? What do you think about moving ahead with this? Thanks Sean ----------...

Hi Graham, I created a bug report with a reproducer for the failures I’ve got: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35288 I have also found that LTO reverts everything the partial inliner has done. Maybe the partial inliner should not be used at the first LTO phase (compilation). I hope I’ll have a chance to look at the code size regressions this week. Thanks, Evgeny Astigeevich From: