similar to: [ThinLTO] RFC: ThinLTO distributed backend interface

As mentioned in the Updated ThinLTO RFC ( http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html), I am sending the symbol linkage and renaming required by ThinLTO as a separate RFC. It is included below. I've also attached the doc in pdf form, since the formatting (especially for the table at the end) may not come through in the copied text below well. Thanks! Teresa ThinLTO

> > This scares me a little for linkonce -- there's a minor change to > semantics if the importing module would have linked against a > *different* definition of the same symbol -- but I'm not really > sure it matters much. > > This should not be an issue in practice as it exists non thinLTO compilations too. For instance changing the optimization level of one module

Thanks for the comments! Responses below. Teresa On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015-Jul-14, at 13:33, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > As mentioned in the Updated ThinLTO RFC ( > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html), I am > sending the

Yes, if I drop the debug flag then the original problem (assertion failure) comes back. Thanks, Taewook From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:52 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end()) failed in FunctionImport.cpp On Fri, Jul

Hi Charles, On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: >> I'm working on adding interprocedural FunctionAttrs optimization >> (http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionAttrs.cpp) to ThinLTO >> so it does something similar to what LTO is doing >> (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33648). I've hit a problem

Hey all, I'm working on adding interprocedural FunctionAttrs optimization ( http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionAttrs.cpp) to ThinLTO so it does something similar to what LTO is doing ( https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33648). I've hit a problem with how the FunctionAttrs optimization expects linkage types. In ThinLTO since the linkage type is set to External or

Hi Taewook, I had a better fix for this approved (D23015), but when I went to merge this with the new LTO API I committed for pcc last week I discovered that his new API already has the same effect. I will update the bug with this info as well. Can you confirm that with a compiler built after 278338 that this problem no longer occurs? Also, any luck on a smaller test case for the -g issue? Now

It was r274523. I’m not sure it was the same module. By mistake I restarted the build with the previous version without backing backing up the build artifacts :( Thanks, Taewook From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO]

No problem! I want to make sure you aren't blocked on trying ThinLTO. Thanks, Teresa On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > > > Sorry I was working on another LLVM issue that more urgent for us, so > didn’t have much time to work on smaller test case. I’ll try the new API > and see if the issus is gone. Thanks! >

Ok, good to know. Any luck on a smaller test case for either of the problems? I tried building all the C/C++ SPEC cpu2006 benchmarks with -g -flto=thin at head and didn't get the failure. Let me try to look into how the debug metadata is normally dropped from the imported decl. In the meantime, could you find out the answers to the questions I had (see below) about the linkage type of the

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > It was r274523. I’m not sure it was the same module. By mistake I > restarted the build with the previous version without backing backing up > the build artifacts :( > So a couple things were added to gold since then, index-based linkonce/weak resolution and some more aggressive internalization. I don't

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Steven Wu via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2018-02-08 9:33 GMT-08:00 Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com>: > >> >> >> On Feb 7, 2018, at 4:03 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >>

2018-02-08 9:33 GMT-08:00 Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com>: > > > On Feb 7, 2018, at 4:03 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2018-02-07 12:45 GMT-08:00 Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com>: > >> >> >> On Feb 7, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > But it is

> On Feb 8, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2018-02-08 9:33 GMT-08:00 Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>>: > > >> On Feb 7, 2018, at 4:03 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2018-02-07

> On 2015-Jul-21, at 15:35, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This scares me a little for linkonce -- there's a minor change to > semantics if the importing module would have linked against a > *different* definition of the same symbol -- but I'm not really > sure it matters much. > > > > This should not be an issue

Hello Teresa, Thank you for your analysis. One thing to note is that the global materializer materializes the value as a function declaration, not a function definition. As I pasted on my first email, ; Materializable ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define weak_odr void @foo(%1*) unnamed_addr #7 comdat($comdat1) align 2 personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0 {} is materialized to ;

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> > To: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:34:56 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com <mailto:davidxl at google.com>> wrote: >> >>

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com <mailto:davidxl at google.com>> wrote: >> >> >>

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Apr 6, 2016, at 9:40 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com <mailto:tejohnson at google.com>> wrote: >> >> >>