> On Nov 16, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> On 11/16/18 2:36 AM, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is the new version of the patch. >>> >>> I have bootstrapped it on both aarch64 and x86, no regression. >>> >>> please take a look. >> >> Thanks for the updated version of the patch. >> I have last small nits I see: >> >> - gcc/common.opt: when running --help=common, the line is too long >> - gcc/doc/invoke.texi - 2 spaces in between sentences + better gol >> - gcc/opts.c - do not mix spaces + tabs >> >> With that I'm fine. But note that I'm not a maintainer :) > > I wonder what happens, when I pass like -flive-patching -fwhole-program > compared to -fwhole-program -flive-patching. > It seems to me that in first case we will end up with whole-program > optimization while in the second we won't. > > I guess we should behave in a way that we disable the passes when > they are enabled implicitly (such as by -O2) but output an error when > once uses contradicting set of options, lie -flive-patching > -fwhole-program?
I have thought of this during the implementation, but finally I decided to provide the user an opportunity to explicitly enable an ipa optimization if they really want to, even though the -flive-patching disables that ipa optimization. But I am Okay to change to the behavior you described in the above, I think it’s reasonable too. Qing > > Honza >> >> Thanks, >> Martin >>
