similar to: [LLVMdev] Unable to perform LLVM LTO using clang

Dear Rafael, Thank you for your answer. The verbose mode -v shows that clang uses the old ld in /usr/bin while I install the gold in /usr/local/bin. Regards, Chunbai On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com > wrote: > > Could anyone tell me where my mistake is? > > Try running > > clang -flto a.o b.o -o main -v > > it should

On 5 December 2013 07:46, Chunbai YANG <chunbyang2 at gapps.cityu.edu.hk> wrote: > Dear Rafael, > > Thank you for your answer. The verbose mode -v shows that clang uses the old > ld in /usr/bin while I install the gold in /usr/local/bin. Clang should be searching the path. What does $ which ld print? Maybe all that you have to do is $ export PATH=/usr/local/bin:$PATH Cheers,

> Could anyone tell me where my mistake is? Try running clang -flto a.o b.o -o main -v it should print how clang is running the linker. See if it is running the linker you expect and if it is passing -plugin to it. Cheers, Rafael

I didn't try to compile it locally (I don't have/use gold), but you should be able to fix the 3 errors fairly easily (looks like missing includes mostly). -- Mehdi > On May 30, 2016, at 5:11 AM, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Mehdi, > Your patch cannot compile with gold-plugin.cpp in latest trunk either, the failure is same as llvm3.8 as below.

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: > >

Hi, unfortunately, my build somehow hangs when linking clang binary and my system is in an unusable state. My toolchain is clang-3.8, gold-1.11 and LLVMgold.so from binutils v2.26.1 (both selfmade) and LTO-flag is enabled. My buildsystem uses cmake-3.6.0 and ninja-1.7.1 (both prebuilt). I have 52 last steps left in my 3rd build. My Linux-kernel is v3.13.0-92 from official Ubuntu repositories.

I guess I miss-interpreted the text in [2]. It talks about the optimizations are hindered if the compiler driver invokes link time optimizer "separately". I found that all files compiled are in bc format. Also in library archives, the embedded files were in bitcode format. So the gold linker and LLVMgold plugin are indeed working fine. However, there is still question over only 6% gain

On 1 August 2012 23:00, Sun, Rui <rui.sun at intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I am trying to use LLVM LTO. I read http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html and > have some questions. Could anyone help? > > > > 1. Can LLVMgold.so work with BFD LD instead of gold? In the > description of changes in binutils 2.20, “* The plugin target has been added > to bfd.

Hi, I am trying to use LLVM LTO. I read http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html and have some questions. Could anyone help? 1. Can LLVMgold.so work with BFD LD instead of gold? In the description of changes in binutils 2.20, "* The plugin target has been added to bfd. It can load the same shared objects used by gold and uses them to provide basic support for new file formats.".

Hi all, I was trying to use LTO facility of LLVM to reduce the footprint of Clang itself. I build the ld-gold  and LLVMgold.so as described at [1] and then set the environment as described too. However, had to add the path for plugin manually as Clang was not able pass it to ld automatically. Following is the setting I used before starting to build (small foot Clang. CXX=clang++ -flto

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> >

Quick update: the previous patch only worked for static linking; this version should work for both static and dynamic linking. I'm not going to send any more updated patches to this list, but please feel free to e-mail me off-list, and I'll be happy to share any updates I have at any point in the future. -Hal ----- Original Message ----- > Rafael, Rui, > > This is obviously

You should probably send them for review/inclusion in bfd. On 11 October 2013 12:39, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Quick update: the previous patch only worked for static linking; this version should work for both static and dynamic linking. > > I'm not going to send any more updated patches to this list, but please feel free to e-mail me off-list, and I'll be

How big is your project? LTO eats RAM even faster than chrome. For example linking clang with LTO could take 16GB of ram. Have you tried using LTO on your project on that machine, or is it your first time? Piotr On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at

Hi Mehdi, The llvm3.8 gold-plugin.cpp is very different from the latest one on trunk. Your patch has compiling failure on llvm3.8 as below. I will try it on latest trunk later. Thank you help anyway! Building CXX object tools/gold/CMakeFiles/LLVMgold.dir/gold-plugin.cpp.o cd /home/jshi19/llvm38releasebuild/tools/gold && /home/jshi19/clang38/bin/clang++ -DGTEST_HAS_RTTI=0

Rafael, Rui, This is obviously an old thread, but in case there is interest, I've been able to get this to work (using the LLVM gold plugin with the ld.bfd linker). This requires some additional logic in the ld.bfd linker (and a small change to the bfd library). I've attached the patch (against binutils HEAD from 2013-09-17) in case anyone finds this useful. The core issue is that ld.bfd

> On Jul 23, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Piotr Padlewski <prazek at google.com <mailto:prazek at google.com>> wrote: >> How big is your project? >> LTO eats RAM even faster than chrome. For example linking clang with LTO >>

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > I finally got around to trying to build with LTO=Thin as discussed earlier. > > The results so far are negative, so I must have done something wrong. > > $ export CXX=clang CC=clang > > $ cmake \ > -G Ninja \ > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ >

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:

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > Sure, I will try this and let you know. Unfortunately, though, I > have another big work commitment that is going to eat up most of my > time through Thu, although I may be able to find some time to try > it. No worries, if I get around it before you do, I will :). > I think so - what is