similar to: Enabling LTO for new target

Can you be more specific? LTO/ThinLTO are target independent. You just need to be using a linker that supports *LTO (gold, lld, ld64, eg). Teresa On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:04 PM, Siddharth Shankar Swain via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > Can anyone guide on how to enable LTO and Thin LTO for a new backend > target ? > Thanks, > Siddharth > >

yeah so when LTO runs, in the linker, it uses the target to produce object code. In the sense of code generation for target arch. Thanks, Siddharth On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > Can you be more specific? LTO/ThinLTO are target independent. You just > need to be using a linker that supports *LTO (gold, lld, ld64, eg). > Teresa

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

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:

Hopefully someone else on the dev list who has experience with LNT and the LLVM test-suite will chime in. I've never run it myself. Adding Mehdi since he ran it with LTO/ThinLTO. I found some documentation for the test-suite: https://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-overview http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/tests.html#llvm-cmake-test-suite But I

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 run LLVM's performance test-suite with LTO and ThinLTO? Teresa On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:21 AM Siddharth Shankar Swain < h2015096 at pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in> wrote: > Hi, >

Hi all, We have enabled Thin LTO and LTO for a specific target architecture. What can be the possible scopes of improvement depending on the target after we enable the basic LTO and thin LTO.? Thanks, Siddharth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180502/8024d9d1/attachment.html>

I've only measured performance on x86. There are some old results for SPEC cpu2006 in the blog post here: http://blog.llvm.org/2016/06/thinlto-scalable-and-incremental-lto.html The benefit is benchmark dependent, e.g. small benchmarks often don't improve much as they don't require whole program optimizations. We've improved the ThinLTO optimizations since then, but I don't

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-Sep-02, at 19:31, Peter

Is -fsplit-stack option used anywhere? My wild guess is that with ld.bfd, the thinLTO link for the DSO does not bring in morestack.o from libgcc.a, but the hidden symbol is defined in lldb binary. David On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Aha - finally reproduced! The difference is using ld.bfd not ld.gold. With > that I

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. Teresa On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 2:38 PM Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On

In uint64_t RTDyldMemoryManager::getSymbolAddressInProcess(const std::string &Name) { there is reference to morestack: #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) // __morestack lives in libgcc, a static library. if (&__morestack && Name == "__morestack") return (uint64_t)&__morestack; #endif #endif // __linux__ && __GLIBC__ On Mon, Oct 3,

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 2015-Sep-02, at 19:31, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:10:42AM +0000, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:43 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < >>> dexonsmith at

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > Small repro: > > __attribute__((weak)) int hello_world(); > > int test() { > if (hello_world) > return hello_world(); > return 0; > } > > $ clang -fuse-ld=gold -flto=thin -O2 -shared -fPIC -o libmore.so more.c > $ objdump -t libmore.so |grep hello >

Hello, I am a computer science student new to LLVM compiler infrastructure. Please guide me where to start from to learn LLVM in the most effective way. Thanks, Siddharth Shankar Swain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170115/6855d875/attachment.html>

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > What is the linker command line buidling liblldb.so? is libgcc.a passed in? > There is no difference in the linker command for liblldb.so or bin/lldb between the ld.bfd and ld.gold cases, and neither links libgcc.a that I can see. The difference appears to be that the __morestack symbol is weak in

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > > I use trunk, but it depends on how close to the bleeding edge you > > > are

GCC LTO works ok for the test case with both bfd and gold linker. David On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> >> wrote:

No worries, thanks for the update. Teresa On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 7:16 AM Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > > > ThinLTO needs to create as many temporary files as there are input > > modules to the link. From your 'ls' below, it doesn't look

I still wonder if this would be an issue in _standard_ (not thin) LTO? This test seems to be OK on my (slightly modified) standard LTO flow, but I do wonder for a more general case. Sergei --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Peter Collingbourne