similar to: Running distributed thinLTO without thin archives.

Thanks! Question about the final link step: Do I provide all the object files to the link step, i.e. something like: clang++ -o thinlto main-native.o lib/lib-native.o src/lib-native.o Do I need to provide --start-lib markers on that final link step as well? Tanoy On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:37 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > Hi Tanoy, > > You can't use

Fails with gold too: Library-native.o:Library.cpp:regway: error: undefined reference to 'vtable for regwayobj' /home/dcallahan/fbsource/fbcode/third-party-buck/platform007/tools/binutils/bin/gold/ld: the vtable symbol may be undefined because the class is missing its key function clang-8: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation) From: Teresa Johnson

I am trying to work through the usage of thinlto for distributed builds. Here is the simple thinlto usage, just add -flto=thin everywhere, easy: clang++ -flto=thin -O3 -c -o CreateWay_.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DSPEC_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN -Wno-dangling-else CreateWay_.cpp clang++ -flto=thin -O3 -c -o Places_.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DSPEC_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN

Thanks Teresa Yes it is astar, happen to send a tar of the sources but they are just copies from the spec distribution The ld command is: GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.29.1 Thanks for the guidance on path names. The prefix-replace just effects the string written to the object files right? So we could post-process that file with other tools as well, correct? Thanks again --david From: Teresa Johnson

I met with the Propeller team today (we work for the same company but it was my first time meeting two members on the team:) ). One thing I have been reassured: * There is no general disassembly work. General disassembly work would assuredly frighten off developers. (Inherently unreliable, memory usage heavy and difficult to deal with CFI, debug information, etc) Minimal amount of plumbing work

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, May 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > "ELF-wrapped bitcode" seems potentially controversial to me. > > What about ar, nm, and various ld implementations adds this requirement? > What about the LLVM implementations of these tools is lacking? > Sorry I can not parse your questions properly. Can you make it clearer? David

So, what Alex is saying is that we have these tools as well and they understand bitcode just fine, as well as every object format - not just ELF. :) -eric On Thu, May 14, 2015, 6:55 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Xinliang David Li > <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > No worries, thanks for the update. Teresa > > 2048 wasn't enough. Bumped to 4096. Only 1300 ninja targets left. > > Once I've been successful with this, I might try building a

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure this is a particularly great assumption to make. Which part? > We have to > support a lot of different build systems and tools and concentrating on > something that just binutils uses isn't particularly friendly here. I think you may have misunderstood His point was exactly

The end goal is the ability to turn on thin-lto as easy as turning optimizations like -O2 or -O3 -- we want friendliness, very much :) David On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure this is a particularly great assumption to make. We have to > support a lot of different build systems and tools and concentrating on >

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:34 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I'm not sure this is a particularly great assumption to make. >>

I've included below an RFC for implementing ThinLTO in LLVM, looking forward to feedback and questions. Thanks! Teresa RFC to discuss plans for implementing ThinLTO upstream. Background can be found in slides from EuroLLVM 2015: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B036uwnWM6RWWER1ZEl5SUNENjQ&authuser=0) As described in the talk, we have a prototype implementation, and would like to

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:11 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:34 AM Daniel Berlin

​Hi again, Teresa. Looks like I had forgotten to report back with success when finally building 3.9.0 in ThinLTO linker mode back in October. Sorry about that and thanks for helping me out. I know how important it is to get success reports as well, as a developer myself, so sorry again :(. While that worked back then, last weekend I tried to build 3.9.1 using 3.9.0 as installed from Arch Linux

Looks like your static library is not even pulled into the link command so the static library is not even in the snapshot. From the link command in the snapshot, the static library is not on the command line from snapshot: /Applications/Xcode-11.3.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ld -Z -demangle -object_path_lto

David, Thanks for looking into this. I did a small reproduction on my machine outside of my build system. So here is how to reproduce: Download https://downloads.xiph.org/releases/ogg/libogg-1.3.4.tar.xz Download llvm-10.0.1 macOS binary export PATH=<path to llvm/bin>:$PATH export SDKROOT=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk untar

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:35 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:11 PM David Blaikie

Hi Tobias The problem is that your static archive has a SYMDEF that is empty, so linker thinks the static library provided doesn't contain any symbol. The reason for that is you are using the `ranlib` from Xcode, which is too old to understand the new bitcode object files produced by llvm 10. There are lots of ways to fix that: * The standard way to create static library on macOS is to use

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:35 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:11 PM David Blaikie