similar to: [RFC] (Thin)LTO with Linker Scripts

Hello Tobias, Thanks very much for the RFC, I think that this will be useful in persuading embedded developers to use LTO in their projects. I think the overall approach for communication between the linker and code generator sounds reasonable. I've got some questions/comments based on some experience with Arm's proprietary linker, which supports LTO but has a different linker script

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 Peter, On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:14 AM Peter Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My understanding from the RFC is: > - All global objects in the bitcode file will be assigned a section name. > ... which is equal to the section name that they would have been emitted to if this was a regular compilation. In addition to allowing the linker to read section

> 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. >

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 16, 2016, at 7:37 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> >> > On Sep 16, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at

The configuration we’re mentioning is a 2-stage bootstrap: You need first to build without LTO your own clang, and then use it for the LTO build. — Mehid > On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > > I am the author of Polly's/ISL's platform tests and could reproduce > the problem on my system with this error message: > >

bfd linker 2.26 works fine with LLVMgold.so. As I mentioned in a previous email, 2.26 ar and ranlib also works fine as long as LLVMgold.so is put in a path binutils know about : $(bindir)/../lib/bfd-plugins/ David On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Graham Yiu via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I recently noticed that the new pass manager was not enabled at regular/thin >> LTO link step even if '-fexperimental-new-pass-manager' was specified in the

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Dave Bozier <seifsta at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Teresa, > > Thanks for providing this updated RFC. > >> For Sony's linker, are you using the gold plugin or libLTO interfaces? >> If the latter, I suppose some ThinLTO handling would have to be added >> to your linker (e.g. to invoke the LLVM hooks to write the stage-2 >>

So, what Alex is saying is that we have these tools as well and they understand bitcode just fine, as well as every object format - not just ELF. :) -eric On Thu, May 14, 2015, 6:55 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Xinliang David Li > <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > "ELF-wrapped bitcode" seems potentially controversial to me. > > What about ar, nm, and various ld implementations adds this requirement? > What about the LLVM implementations of these tools is lacking? > Sorry I can not parse your questions properly. Can you make it clearer? David

The end goal is the ability to turn on thin-lto as easy as turning optimizations like -O2 or -O3 -- we want friendliness, very much :) David On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure this is a particularly great assumption to make. We have to > support a lot of different build systems and tools and concentrating on >

My earlier statement about wrapping things in a native object file held in that it is controversial. It appears to be still central to your design. It may help to look at the problem from a different viewpoint: LLVM is not a compiler. It is a framework that can be used to make compiler-like tools. >From that view, it no longer makes sense to discuss "the plugin," or gold, or $AR,

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:35 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:11 PM David Blaikie

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > -plugin-opt is a gold linker option. Turn on gold linker with > -fuse-ld=gold > But something is odd then - if the builds aren't using gold then I don't see how ThinLTO could have been kicking in? Teresa > David > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Carsten Mattner via llvm-dev

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> > wrote: > > My earlier statement about wrapping things in a native object file held > in that it is controversial. It appears to be still central to your design. > > > > It may help to look at the

I think for ld64, you can mix thinLTO and fullLTO files and ld64 is going to compile them separately and combine the result. (Mehdi can confirm). I think this is aligned with the fact that whether to use full or thin LTO is decided during clang invocation, not linker invocation. I am not against any of the model, but I think we need to do some research before making the effort to switch the model.

On Jun 1, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at