similar to: [LLVMdev] [Code Ownership] LTO

On Nov 16, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > I'd like to take over LTO, unless someone else is clamoring for it. Do you mean liblto specifically, the IR linker, or something else? This makes sense to me as long as it is well defined. -Chris

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?

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 > >

Inlining is more aggressive with LTO. This could lead to stack frame sizes growing. However, sometimes you're working with software that is sensitive to stack sizes and would like to keep things within a certain limit (say 8K). Is there a way to achieve this with clang's LTO (or indeed its inliner in general)? -bw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hi LLVMites! This patch adds the 'nobuiltin' attribute to to LLVM. This is needed during LTO, which right now ignores this attribute and command line flag. I want to make this an IR-level attribute instead of a target-dependent attribute because it's used during IR modification and not code generation. -bw -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed...

Looking forward to these changes! Thanks for working on it. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I can try my best, but it would be a bit tricky to get it all finished by > then... > > -bw > > On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > > Bill, > > Are there

FYI: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-October/066389.html Please read and let me know you comments. -bw On Oct 11, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > Looking forward to these changes! Thanks for working on it. > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I

On Feb 18, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi LLVMites! >> >> This patch adds the 'nobuiltin' attribute to to LLVM. This is needed during LTO, which right now ignores this attribute and command line flag. I want to make this an

On Jan 3, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 2015, at 8:32 PM, David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am new to the LLVM dev community so forgive a perhaps obvious question. I am looking at bug 17623 which is an LTO/optimizer interaction bug. I am working on a Mac with Xcode installed but have

Module-Level Attributes Overview -------- LLVM currently lacks the ability to specify an attribute on a module as a whole. This isn't typically a problem as most optimizations and code transformations rely upon more finer-grained information, such as function attributes. However, some transformations, in particular LTO, may need to know information about the module. As a side-benefit, it

Bill, Are there any chances that you complete it before 3.4 is branched? On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:22 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > Thanks for answering. To make sure that we are on the same page, let's > agree on definitions :) Here, by

Hi Dmitry, I can try my best, but it would be a bit tricky to get it all finished by then... -bw On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > Bill, > > Are there any chances that you complete it before 3.4 is branched? > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 2013, at

Hello, LTO is currently the only library which is always built as shared, even under Windows. This actually seems to lead to failure using LLVM in another project under Windows, at least for me (the error message complains about "LTO-NOTFOUND.OBJ"). Switching it to a static library fixes the issue (again, at least for me under Windows). The change was made in:

I'd like to write an inter-modular analysis pass. My understanding is that this should take the form of an LTO pass. However, I have been unable to find any resources on the mechanics of writing and running a custom LTO pass. Does anyone have any pointers? Thanks, Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

AFAIK, ld does not use DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH to lookup libLTO.dylib but contains a reference to @executable_path/../lib/libLTO.dylib. The only way I managed to load a different LTO library than the default one is to create a symlink pointing to the actual ld binary (as returned by 'xcrun -find ld') and making sure the library I want to load is placed at ../lib/libLTO.dylib relatively to this

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

Hi, We have been investigating an issue when running LTO with our proprietary linker, which links against libLTO dynamically. The issue is that when we pass -time-passes via the lto_codegen_debug_options function in the LTO C API, no time information is produced during compilation. The reason for this is that time information is stored in state owned by a ManagedStatic instance, and is only

+ OptLevel = opt[1] - '0'; Please check and reject things like -OX at least in the gold plugin. Can you add a test showing that * createLowerBitSetsPass is run at -O0 * the addLateLTOOptimizationPasses passes are run at -O1, but not -O0 I think the patch is fine otherwise, but wait for a review from someone on the ld64 side (Duncan, Manman or Bob for example). Thanks, Rafael

> On 2015-Aug-31, at 18:09, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:50 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015-Aug-31, at 12:21, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > Yep. This is where I was going :) > > Glad I found consensus, but I want to

2017-05-02 8:42 GMT-07:00 Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com>: > +Teresa, Mehdi > > On May 2, 2017, at 08:31, James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> > wrote: > > Hi, > > We have been investigating an issue when running LTO with our proprietary > linker, which links against libLTO dynamically. The issue is that when we > pass