On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 04:00:25PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I think this is probably moot, since I believe that Kenny feels DWARF is
not suitable for reasons other than the abbreviation table issue, but
this is a clever technique.
... for GIMPLE; when I discussed with him, I got the
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 04:00:25PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I think this is probably moot, since I believe that Kenny feels DWARF is
not suitable for reasons other than the abbreviation table issue, but
this is a clever technique.
... for GIMPLE; when
Kenneth Zadeck wrote on 08/28/06 09:57:
I have not done this because I do not rule the earth. That was not
what I was assigned to do, and I agreed that DWARF3 sounded like a
reasonable way to go. Now that I understand the details of DWARF3, I
have changed my mind about the correct
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 09:45:34AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Given that Mark, and for that matter no one else, did not really push
back, I am pretty much committed not to use dwarf.
Then... what are you going to do about things like types? Invent a new
serialization for those too? I think
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 09:45:34AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Given that Mark, and for that matter no one else, did not really push
back, I am pretty much committed not to use dwarf.
Then... what are you going to do about things like types? Invent a new
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:19:07AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 09:45:34AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Given that Mark, and for that matter no one else, did not really push
back, I am pretty much committed not to use dwarf.
Diego Novillo wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote on 08/28/06 09:57:
I have not done this because I do not rule the earth. That was not
what I was assigned to do, and I agreed that DWARF3 sounded like a
reasonable way to go. Now that I understand the details of DWARF3, I
have changed my mind
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 09:51 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
+#if STUPID_TYPE_SYSTEM
STUPID_TYPE_SYSTEM? No need to be insulting. It's unpleasant.
Well it right now it is stupid, this is just a work around anyways until
people fix the type mismatches really. Is it more insulting than having
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 09:51 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
+#if STUPID_TYPE_SYSTEM
STUPID_TYPE_SYSTEM? No need to be insulting. It's unpleasant.
Well it right now it is stupid, this is just a work around anyways until
people fix the type mismatches
hi,
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 16:44 -0500, Mark Mitchell wrote:
[snip]
(Implied, but not stated, in your mail is the fact that the abbreviation
table cannot be indexed directly. If it could be, then you wouldn't
have to read the entire abbreviation table for each function; you would
just
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Even if we decide that we are going to process all of the functions in
one file at one time, we still have to have access to the functions that
are going to be inlined into the function being compiled. Getting at
those functions that are going to
On 8/31/06, Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Even if we decide that we are going to process all of the functions in
one file at one time, we still have to have access to the functions that
are going to be inlined into the function being
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On 8/31/06, Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Even if we decide that we are going to process all of the functions in
one file at one time, we still have to have access to the functions
that
are going to be inlined into
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Here, we won't be making syscalls
Yes, you almost certainly will. If you've got a thousand object files,
you probably don't want to keep them all opened all the time; there are
these pesky things like open file descriptor limits,
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I am not so concerned with running out of virtual address space than I
am about being able to break this up so that it can be done in parallel,
on a farm of machines. Otherwise, lto can never be part of anyone's
compile/test loop.
I think we just expanded the scope of
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I am not so concerned with running out of virtual address space than I
am about being able to break this up so that it can be done in parallel,
on a farm of machines. Otherwise, lto can never be part of anyone's
compile/test loop.
I think we
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Here, we won't be making syscalls
Yes, you almost certainly will.
OK, good point.
In any case, my concern is that we're worrying a lot about on-disk
encoding, but that there are lots of other hard
mathieu lacage wrote:
I have spent a considerable amount of time looking at the abbrev tables
output by gcc are not totally random: their entries are sorted by their
abbrev code. That is, the abbrev code of entry i+1 is higher than that
of entry i.
That's an interesting observation.
KZ == Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
KZ 2) To have a discussion about the use of DWARF3. I am now against the
KZ use of DWARF3 for encoding the GIMPLE.
FWIW your arguments convinced me.
I think what matters most is that the resulting format be relatively
well documented (say, better
[...]
KZ +case TRUTH_NOT_EXPR:
KZ +case VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR:
KZ +#if STUPID_TYPE_SYSTEM
KZ + output_type_ref (ob, TREE_TYPE (expr));
KZ +#endif
I think VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR needs to be treated like NOP_EXPR and
CONVERT_EXPR in the STUPID_TYPE_SYSTEM case. VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is a
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This posting is a progress report of my task of encoding and decoding
the GIMPLE stream into LTO. Included in this posting is a patch that
encodes functions and dumps the result to files.
[I'm sorry for not replying to this sooner. I've been on a plane or in
a
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This
will be more cumbersome if we have to keep reloading each object
file's abbrev table just to tear apart a single function in that .o
file. While the abbrev sections average slightly less than %2 of the
of the size of the GIMPLE encoding for
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Even if we decide that we are going to process all of the functions in
one file at one time, we still have to have access to the functions that
are going to be inlined into the function being compiled. Getting at
those functions that are going to be inlined is where the
On 8/30/06, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I guess my overriding concern is that we're focusing heavily on the data
format here (DWARF? Something else? Memory-mappable? What compression
scheme?) and we may not have enough data. I guess we just have to pick
something and run with
On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This posting is a progress report of my task of encoding and decoding
the GIMPLE stream into LTO. Included in this posting is a patch that
encodes functions and dumps the result to files.
Interesting email. One question: how big are the
Chris Lattner wrote:
On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This posting is a progress report of my task of encoding and decoding
the GIMPLE stream into LTO. Included in this posting is a patch that
encodes functions and dumps the result to files.
Interesting email. One
On Aug 28, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I actually do not think that it is productive to spend that much time
measuring this until we first assure ourselves that we are getting all
of the information output correctly. That 60mb number will change
a lot
(both up and down) as we
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This posting is a progress report of my task of encoding and decoding
the GIMPLE stream into LTO. Included in this posting is a patch that
encodes functions and dumps the result to files.
I have only a limited understanding of GIMPLE and LTO, but here are my
comments
Michael Eager wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This posting is a progress report of my task of encoding and decoding
the GIMPLE stream into LTO. Included in this posting is a patch that
encodes functions and dumps the result to files.
I have only a limited understanding of GIMPLE and LTO,
29 matches
Mail list logo
