mehdi_amini added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30920#700433, @tejohnson wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30920#700133, @pcc wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30920#700077, @tejohnson wrote: > > > > > Until everything is converted to using size attributes, it seems like a > > > correct fix for the bug is to accept these options in the gold-plugin and > > > pass through the LTO API to the PassManagerBuilder. > > > > > > Not necessarily. There is no requirement (from a correctness perspective) > > that `-Os` at link time should exactly match the behaviour of `-Os` at > > compile time. > > > Sure, but there is certainly a perception that optimization flags affecting > the non-LTO pipeline should similarly affect the LTO pipeline. LTO should be > transparent to the user, so if -Os behaves one way without LTO, it seems > problematic to me if it behaves a different way with LTO. > > That being said, agree that the best way to enforce that is to pass the > relevant flags through the IR. (On the flip side, if the user passes -O1 to > the link step, it does get passed through to the plugin and affects the LTO > optimization pipeline...) I agree that I don't like the discrepancy: the driver should *not* drop -Os silently if it passes down -O1/-O2/-O3, a warning is the minimum. https://reviews.llvm.org/D30920 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
