similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-link as an extension

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Johan Engelen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Davide Italiano <dccitaliano at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Johan, >> > >> > Right, per the bug

Hi Johan, ld64 only calls functions from llvm/include/llvm-c/lto.h (defined in llvm/tools/lto/lto.cpp) For instance ThinLTOCodeGenerator::addModule is called through thinlto_codegen_add_module(). Apple hasn't released the code for ld64 in Xcode 9 yet, did you check if it is fixed in Xcode 9? (I think I remember fixing it in ld64 but I'm not totally sure...). >From what I can see

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > Hi Johan, > > Right, per the bug this is fixed in lld (and was already handled in gold-plugin), but I guess not in ld64. Note that lld and gold-plugin use the new LTO API, while ld64 (and probably other linkers) are still using the legacy libLTO (which is what ThinLTOCodeGenerator.cpp is part of).

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

Hi all, I'd like to propose changes to how we do promotion of global values in ThinLTO. The goal here is to make it possible to pre-compile parts of the translation unit to native code at compile time. For example, if we know that: 1) A function is a leaf function, so it will never import any other functions, and 2) The function's instruction count falls above a threshold specified at

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose changes to how we do promotion of global values in > ThinLTO. The goal here is to make it possible to pre-compile parts of the > translation unit to native code at

Hi, I'm building LLVM on Mac OS 10.10 and I'm having trouble making LTO work. The system linker dumps the following information when I executed "ld -v" @(#)PROGRAM:ld PROJECT:ld64-241.9 configured to support archs: armv6 armv7 armv7s arm64 i386 x86_64 x86_64h armv6m armv7m armv7em LTO support using: LLVM version 3.4.2 which tells me that it is correctly pointing to the LLVM

Hi all, I have a static library with object files with the same name (not the same full path, but the archive made with llvm-ar does not store the full path). The library contains object files that have been compiled with `-flto=thin` (compiled with LDC, not clang, but that shouldn't matter). When linking to that static library, I get the error: Assertion failed:

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 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

On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 January 2015 at 17:43, Rahman Lavaee <r.lavaee at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> I'm building LLVM on Mac OS 10.10 and I'm having trouble making LTO work. >> The system linker dumps the following information when I executed "ld -v" >> >>

> On Apr 6, 2016, at 9:40 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk <mailto:peter at pcc.me.uk>> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Apr 6,

On 28 Oct 2016, at 18:38, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > GCC uses bfd by default, LLVM uses LLD. If you want to change, use -fuse-ld. GCC doesn’t use BFD by default, it uses /usr/bin/ld (or ${PREFIX}/bin/ld). If that is a symlink to ld.bfd, ld.gold, Apple ld64, or ld.lld, it will use whichever. I think it would be very confusing for clang to use a

On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I don't quite get why you think sharing is not buying us anything... > It reduces the memory footprint of the source modules (there is sharing among the source modules) and the number of

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose changes to how we do promotion of global values in > ThinLTO. The goal here is to make it possible to pre-compile parts of the > translation unit to native code at

+ 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 Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 3, 2016, at 10:01 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >>

Hi, Can anyone guide on how to enable LTO and Thin LTO for a new backend target ? Thanks, Siddharth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180129/2ae8f38d/attachment.html>

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 28 October 2016 at 18:12, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: > It should be possible to search the path for ld.lld first, then ld, > but to me it seems like it will just be more confusing. Hum, for me it would be less confusing. :) GCC uses bfd by default, LLVM uses LLD. If you want to change, use -fuse-ld. What would be confusing in this scenario? > Clang's current