similar to: [LTO] Bypass the integrated assembler ...

> On Aug 9, 2016, at 9:24 AM, Kevin Choi via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > -Wl,--plugin=LLVMgold.so,--plugin-opt=emit-llvm This is totally Gold specific. The fact that he mentions using LTOCodeGenerator makes me think that he does not use Gold. > > http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/opt.html <http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/opt.html> >

On 7 June 2016 at 10:54, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > I finally enable the clang LTO build with small code model and PIE, and my clang LTO Uefi firmware works now. Thank you! But I have one more issue on the clang normal build (without LTO) now. I find the small code model + "-fpie" build option will let clang generate some R_X86_64_GOTPCREL

On 31 May 2016 at 01:08, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Mehdi, > What's the default code model for x86_64 Mac OS X App? Andrew showed me some example code of Mac OS X App as below, which looks to use the small code model but can run at >4GB high address. Small, but PIC. > For example if you read a global like this the compiler will generate this code.

> On May 29, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Mehdi, > GCC LTO seems support large code model in my side as below, if the code model is linker specific, does the GCC LTO use a special linker which is different from the one in GNU Binutils? I don't know anything about GCC. (And I doubt the GNU linker supports LTO with LLVM). > I’m a

> On May 17, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Steven, > > As mehdi stated , the optimisation level is specific to linker and it > enables Inter-Pro opts passes ,please refer function To be very clear: the -O option may trigger *linker* optimizations as well, independently of LTO. -- Mehdi > >

Hi Mehdi, Should I apply your attached patch on my llvm3.8 source firstly? Or should I use the latest llvm SVN trunk instead? Steven Shi Intel\SSG\STO\UEFI Firmware Tel: +86 021-61166522 iNet: 821-6522 From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 2:13 PM To: Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> Cc: Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at

> On May 29, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > > (And I doubt the GNU linker supports LTO with LLVM). > [Steven]: I’ve pushed GNU Binutils ld to support LLVM gold plugin, see detail in this bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20070 <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20070>. The new GNU ld linker works well with

Hi, > On May 29, 2016, at 7:36 AM, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Mehdi, > After deeper debug, I found my firmware LTO wrong code issue is related to X64 code model (-mcmodel=large) is always overridden as small (-mcmodel=small) if LTO build. And I don't know how to correctly specific the large code model for my X64 firmware LTO build. Appreciate if

Hi Mehdi, After deeper debug, I found my firmware LTO wrong code issue is related to X64 code model (-mcmodel=large) is always overridden as small (-mcmodel=small) if LTO build. And I don't know how to correctly specific the large code model for my X64 firmware LTO build. Appreciate if you could let me know it. You know, parts of my Uefi firmware (BIOS) have to been loaded to run in high

(And I doubt the GNU linker supports LTO with LLVM). [Steven]: I’ve pushed GNU Binutils ld to support LLVM gold plugin, see detail in this bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20070. The new GNU ld linker works well with LLVM/Clang LTO when build IA32 code in my side. And from the ld owner input in the bug comments, the current X64 LLVM LTO issue is in llvm LTO plugin. The fact

Hi Steven, > On May 29, 2016, at 11:28 PM, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Mehdi, > Should I apply your attached patch on my llvm3.8 source firstly? Or should I use the latest llvm SVN trunk instead? I wrote it on trunk, but I expect it to be fairly easy to port on 3.8. This is really just quickly plumbing an option on the TargetMachine creation. --

Hi Mehdi, GCC LTO seems support large code model in my side as below, if the code model is linker specific, does the GCC LTO use a special linker which is different from the one in GNU Binutils? I'm a bit surprised if both OS X ld64 and gold plugin do not support large code model in LTO. Since modern system widely use the 64bit, the code need to run in high address (larger than 2 GB) is a

Hi Justin , Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov format . We are planing to customize the clang code coverage for embedded world ,before we start tweaking the gcov / -fprofile-instr-generate code-base ,we would like to take feedback

We don't use cl::opt in gold, instead we parse the -plugin-opts that gold passes the plugin (see process_plugin_option). Cheers, Rafael On 30 May 2016 at 02:13, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 29, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > > (And I doubt the GNU linker supports LTO with LLVM). > [Steven]: I’ve pushed

Hi All , We are in process of exploring the LTO and found that internalize pass is the replacement for whole program optimisation (-fwhole-program in gcc) in clang and in the below case define i32 @test() #0 { entry: ret i32 0 } define i32 @main() #0 { entry: %retval = alloca i32, align 4 store i32 0, i32* %retval, align 4 %call = call i32 @test() ret i32 %call } ***

Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Justin , > > Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going > forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the > -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov > format . Going forward, the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping (which I'll refer to as

> 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

Try using $PWD/test.cpp on the clang command line. I am seeing the duplicate DIFile entries, but not yet able to reproduce a .debug_line section with multiple directory entries. --paulr From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Tomar, Sourabh Singh via llvm-dev Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:07 PM To: Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com>; cfe-dev at

Hi All, We have populated info in the Clang Sema i.e class Sema (include/clang/Sema/Sema.h) and like to propagate the same to Clang Codegen . Currently we are propagating through ASTContext ,where we have duplicating fields info and operation in the Sema and ASTContext . Any better way of doing the same ? Thank you ~Umesh

Hi All, We trying to use clang+llvm to generate the gcc coverage format as clang version 3.6.0 $clang --coverage -Xclang -coverage-cfg-checksum -Xclang -coverage-no-function-names-in-data -Xclang -coverage-version='407*' test.c $a.out $llvm-cov gcov test.gcda Unexpected version: *704. Invalid .gcno File! Debugging the above cause ,But any hints from experts here ,will help a lot