similar to: With -flto, is manual inline unnecessary?

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Graham Yiu via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I recently noticed that the new pass manager was not enabled at regular/thin >> LTO link step even if '-fexperimental-new-pass-manager' was specified in the

LLD revision is r331862. To add, I had initially tried it on r328903, which also reproduced the issue. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM Pirama Arumuga Nainar <pirama at google.com> wrote: > Hi Teresa, > > Thanks for looking into this. I hadn't initially tried ToT, but it > reproduces in ToT as well when I tried. > > $ ./clang --version > > clang version 7.0.0

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 6:43 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > Hi Pirama, > > I can't reproduce with either lld or gold, using a compiler built from > head. What version is your clang? > (and your lld) > > Thanks, > Teresa > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:50 PM Pirama Arumuga Nainar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Adding Peter to comment on the linker resolution issue. >From adding save-temps, it looks like lld and gold are giving different resolutions to the symbols, which is presumably creating this issue: (first file is with lld and second is with gold) $ diff a.out.resolution.txt gold/ 4c4 < -r=a.o,__llvm_profile_raw_version,plx --- > -r=a.o,__llvm_profile_raw_version,l 8,9c8,9 <

Sorry, operator error. I can reproduce now. Interestingly, this does not reproduce using gold, and they utilize the same underlying LTO API. Let me dig a little using save-temps and see where they diverge. Teresa On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:28 AM Pirama Arumuga Nainar <pirama at google.com> wrote: > LLD revision is r331862. To add, I had initially tried it on r328903, > which also

Talked to Eric Fri and he suggested that this might be the first of several places where we want behavior of LTO compiles to diverge from normal -O2 compiles. So for now I have implemented this such that we pass down -flto to the -cc1 job, and that gets propagated as a code gen option and into the PassManagerBuilder. I have left the current logic translating -flto to the -emit-llvm-bc option,

The duplicate symbol errors are for __llvm_profile_filename and __llvm_profile_raw_version. IIUC, these are supposed to be weak symbols but Thin LTO seems to break this in some way. This does't happen with gold or no LTO or full LTO. $ cat > a.c extern int foo(); int main() { return foo(); } $ cat > b.c int foo() { return 0; } $ clang a.c -fprofile-generate -flto=thin -c $ clang

Thanks Peter, your patch does fix the reproducer. I filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37422 to track this bug. I have no clue on how to resolve the tests - whether further cleanup is required in the code or in the tests. But if Teresa or you cannot get to it, I can, with some help, take a crack at fixing the tests. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:26 AM Peter Collingbourne <peter at

Hi, I wanted to get the linked result in LLVM bitcode format. With LTO, this can be done by -flto -Wl,-plugin-opt,emit-llvm. Instead of generating native executables, it outputs a file with bitcode format. Does this still work with -flto=thin? -flto=thin -Wl,-plugin-opt,emit-llvm outputs a bitcode file, but its file size is too small, and does not contain all contents. What is the correct way

The problem is that ThinLTO is not dropping the non-prevailing definitions, and they end up being emitted into the object file for b.o. $ ../ra/bin/llvm-dis -o - b.o0.0.preopt.bc | grep __llvm_prof $__llvm_profile_raw_version = comdat any $__llvm_profile_filename = comdat any @__llvm_profile_raw_version = constant i64 72057594037927940, comdat @__llvm_profile_filename = constant [19 x i8]

Hi Teresa, Thanks for looking into this. I hadn't initially tried ToT, but it reproduces in ToT as well when I tried. $ ./clang --version clang version 7.0.0 (trunk 331879) (llvm/trunk 331888) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix InstalledDir: /ssd2/pirama/llvm-upstream/llvm-release/bin/. $ ./ld.lld --version LLD 7.0.0 (https://git.llvm.org/git/lld.git

Hi, I use the following commands to compile the IR. But I don't see the macro information in the .ll file. Is there a way to preserve the macro information (print() in this case) for debugging purposes? $ clang -std=gnu99 -g3 -flto -Wall -pedantic -c -o main.o main.c $ clang main.o -flto -fuse-ld=gold '-Wl,-plugin-opt=save-temps' -o main.exe $ llvm-dis main.exe.0.0.preopt.bc /* vim:

Hi, I'm using clang frontend. I'm interested in some particular hot loop in my code and I emit a report from vectorizer optimizations passes. I receive nice output if passing -Rpass* flags as long as I'm building without LTO? But with -flto it just prints nothing. Is there a way to emit opt reports when using LTO? For now I can only approximate about whether my the loop will be

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> Agreed. Although I assume you mean invoke the new pass under a >> ThinLTO-only option so that avail extern are not dropped in the >> compile pass before the LTO link? > > > No, this pass

Hi Mehdi, Saw David's response but wanted to add a bit more below. On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Teresa, >>

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > The clang patch lgtm, and I had some comments on the LLVM patch. Duncan, do > you want to say more there? > > --- include/llvm/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.h (revision 237590) > +++ include/llvm/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.h (working copy) > @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ class PassManagerBuilder {

Hi Pirama, I can't reproduce with either lld or gold, using a compiler built from head. What version is your clang? Thanks, Teresa On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:50 PM Pirama Arumuga Nainar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The duplicate symbol errors are for __llvm_profile_filename and __llvm_profile_raw_version. > IIUC, these are supposed to be weak symbols but

Hi Teresa, Thanks for the detailed reply! > How are you creating your bitcode files? I create the bitcode with `-flto=thin -c` and sure it has a GLOBALVAL_SUMMARY_BLOCK. And there’s no RegularLTO partition only ThinLTO bicode. > Where is it aborting in the backend? It aborts at ` report_fatal_error("Failed to setup codegen")` in of codegen() of LTOBackend.cpp. And before that in

The design objective is to make thinLTO mostly transparent to binutil tools to enable easy integration with any build system in the wild. 'Pass-through' mode with 'ld -r' instead of the partial LTO mode is another reason. David On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Eric Christopher

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > I suspect that the right way to do promotion/renaming of this sort is to > rename at the MC layer just before writing the symbol table to the object > file. > I think that is too late - how would the symbols be distinguished in the LTO case below after the IR is linked but before we renamed the