similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Linkage of user-supplied library functions in LTO

On Mar 8, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I believe it doesn't matter if the symbols in sections are internal or external---that only matters for symbol resolution. Given this... > I've read the original thread (the 3 emails), and I'm still not sure what the purpose of internalization is in the context of user-provided library

> On 2016-May-27, at 10:47, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On May 27, 2016, at 9:57 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2016-May-27, at 05:55, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 apple.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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

+ 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

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:

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 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 double-check that this makes sense to add to the driver. I didn't quite think through the implications myself. Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is going to be invoked, it seems like I'll

> On May 27, 2016, at 9:57 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On 2016-May-27, at 05:55, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Umesh Kalappa via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi All ,

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:48 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 4, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:45 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < >>

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:45 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 < > >>

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:13:43AM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:48 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Sep 4, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo

> 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

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 03:11:39PM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:13:43AM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > >> > >>> On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> 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 -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

> On 2016-May-27, at 05:55, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Umesh Kalappa via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi All , > > We are in process of exploring the LTO and found that internalize > pass is the replacement for whole program optimisation > (-fwhole-program

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

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Having the analogous of -O0/-O1/-O2/-O3 for the LTO pipeline makes > sense I think. > > I agree that something along option number 2 is probably the best. > Some questions: > > * Should "clang -O3 foo.o -o foo" use LTO with -O3? > * Should "clang foo.o -o

Shantonu Sen wrote: > Are you building llvm-gcc yourself? If so, what version? > > Xcode releases include an older llvm-gcc and libLTO.dylib, which may not understand bitcode generated by newer self-built compilers. > Thanks. A bitcode format mismatch was the problem. I'm not sure if the problem stems from the fact that the bitcode was generated for the wrong architecture

Are you building llvm-gcc yourself? If so, what version? Xcode releases include an older llvm-gcc and libLTO.dylib, which may not understand bitcode generated by newer self-built compilers. If you are only using llvm-gcc from the Xcode tools release, use the driver from: /Developer/usr/bin/llvm-gcc-4.2 If you are building llvm-gcc yourself, try, in this order: 1) sudo ln -s