--- Comment #50 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 10:38 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: davek
Date: Mon Jun 14 10:38:18 2010
New Revision: 160722
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160722
Log:
ChangeLog:
Backport from mainline:
2010-04-27 Dave Korn
--- Comment #49 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 14:33 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: ro
Date: Fri Jun 4 14:32:19 2010
New Revision: 160269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160269
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2010-04-27 Dave Korn
--- Comment #45 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 02:23 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: davek
Date: Tue Apr 27 02:22:40 2010
New Revision: 158762
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158762
Log:
ChangeLog:
PR lto/42776
* configure.ac
--- Comment #46 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 02:24 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: davek
Date: Tue Apr 27 02:23:56 2010
New Revision: 158763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158763
Log:
Missing file from last commit!
ChangeLog:
2010-04-27 Dave Korn
--- Comment #47 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 02:25 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: davek
Date: Tue Apr 27 02:24:51 2010
New Revision: 158764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158764
Log:
Missing changelog from last commit!
ChangeLog:
2010-04-27 Dave
--- Comment #48 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 02:26 ---
Sorry, missed a couple of files the first time round and had to check them in
subsequently. Oops. *sheepish grin*
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #42 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-23 16:10
---
Fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #43 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-23 16:13 ---
(In reply to comment #42)
Fixed?
Still awaiting build system maintainer approval as per your request. Ten days
is just on the lower margin of the range that I let a patch wait before pinging
it; I'll do so
--- Comment #44 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-24 02:46 ---
nice, it's a bit difficult to handle autoreconf in mingw :D, I need a specific
version on my linux box and then make a patch including configure and makefiles
changes :)
--
--- Comment #41 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 06:01 ---
Thanks everyone for all the help with testing and validation :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #35 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 10:40 ---
So if I understand correctly, the state of things at the moment is this:
Without LTO:
Time: 419.938 sec (6 m 59 s)
with LTO incl linker flags:
Time: 443.047 sec (7 m 23 s)
In other words, with LTO is ~6% slower
--- Comment #36 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 13:30 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/512/Lectures/30IDFAO.pdf
Thanks for the link, not just because it's full of intersting information,
but also because I now have a new candidate for
--- Comment #37 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 15:58 ---
LTO for Mach-O is now being tracked in bug 43729.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #38 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 16:10 ---
Could be interesting for Tru64 UNIX, which uses ECOFF, too.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #39 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-12 16:55 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
So if I understand correctly, the state of things at the moment is this:
Without LTO:
Time: 419.938 sec (6 m 59 s)
with LTO incl linker flags:
Time: 443.047 sec (7 m 23 s)
In
--- Comment #40 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 05:58 ---
Submitted to -patches list at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00612.html
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #32 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-11 17:38 ---
I've repeated the test multiple times, I already done scan benchmarks before
I think I need to check if I have same results on linux
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #33 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-11 22:59 ---
A common mistake is to not pass the optimizer flags properly to the linker.
There is a thread about that, too:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00438.html
--
--- Comment #34 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-11 23:58 ---
good point :) it should be written in caps, it's not common usage of linking
flags :)
anyway the reason is easy to understand
results aren't exactly as expected by at least not crazy :)
--- SCAN SUMMARY
--- Comment #31 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-10 16:20 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
there is something odd.
with lto:
Time: 674.484 sec (11 m 14 s)
without:
Time: 419.938 sec (6 m 59 s)
a lot slower using lto?
Is it possible you're just seeing the effects of file
--- Comment #29 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 18:30 ---
using -flto links, but looks like it links in a different way
while linking llvm part I get ice:
In member function 'RefineAbstractType':
lto1: internal compiler error: in input_gimple_stmt, at lto-streamer-in.c:1108
--- Comment #30 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 19:48 ---
there is something odd.
with lto:
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
Known viruses: 754681
Engine version: de...@clamwin MinGW - Apr 9 2010
Scanned directories: 1
Scanned files: 4402
Infected files: 0
Data scanned:
--- Comment #23 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 03:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=20342)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20342action=view)
updated for current trunk
obsoletes respin-3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #24 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 03:56 ---
Updated for current trunk, just compiled a cross gcc for mingw
I'll test if works
--
sherpya at netfarm dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #25 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 03:57 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
Updated for current trunk, just compiled a cross gcc for mingw
I'll test if works
Thank you! Now that 4.6 is open I'll finish the work on this (the
autoconfery needs tightening up a
--- Comment #26 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 04:02 ---
I'm getting a lot of:
lto1: warning: visibility attribute not supported in this configuration;
ignored
in the linking phase
using -fwhopr
and the link fails with a lot of:
--- Comment #27 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 04:04 ---
these functions are static
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #28 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 04:10 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
these functions are static
Hmm, some kind of inlining problem maybe? There's a thread on the main GCC
list at the moment about problems with WHOPR, so I don't know to what extent
it's
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-13 10:23
---
(In reply to comment #21)
(In reply to comment #20)
What is the plan for this bug, fix it for GCC 4.5.0 or for later?
I don't really think I can argue that this is stage3 material, so the plan is
to fix it
--- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 20:57 ---
What is the plan for this bug, fix it for GCC 4.5.0 or for later?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #21 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-13 01:06 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
What is the plan for this bug, fix it for GCC 4.5.0 or for later?
I don't really think I can argue that this is stage3 material, so the plan is
to fix it when trunk reopens for 4.6, and I
--- Comment #19 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-04 17:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=19805)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19805action=view)
Further bugfix
fixed silly cut'n'pasto in the endianness layer which was truncating 4-byte
fields to 2 bytes.
--- Comment #14 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-02-03
10:15 ---
There is a portability issue in is_elf_or_coff: fopen should be called with
rb instead of r. Otherwise, fread fails when a COFF file has 26 sections,
because it is interpreted as a text, and 26 means end
--- Comment #15 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 12:02 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
There is a portability issue in is_elf_or_coff: fopen should be called with
rb instead of r. Otherwise, fread fails when a COFF file has 26 sections,
because it is interpreted as a text,
--- Comment #16 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 14:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=19795)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19795action=view)
Latest and updatest.
Updated:
- enable for mingw targets
- open files in binary mode in is_elf_or_coff
- bunch of
--- Comment #17 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 14:48 ---
TO-DO: (additions invited, this is not by any means a complete list!)
- Add autoconfigury to ensure binutils supports .section directive alignment
syntax, and disable LTO if not.
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 16:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=19797)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19797action=view)
Bugfix of -respin-1
Opps! Forgot to update the lto language hook definitions. All fixed now.
--
davek at
--- Comment #13 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 10:46 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
The patch works for mingw. So you can enable lto for it, too.
Thanks for that, I'll update the patch in the next day or three to include
MinGW. (I'll also clean it up a bit and add more
--- Comment #11 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-21 19:46 ---
Today's take 2 produces a ton of decompression stream errors. It turns out(*)
that the original approach probably is the correct one after all, and that
p2align will probably not do what we need here, so I've
--- Comment #12 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-01-22
01:17 ---
The patch works for mingw. So you can enable lto for it, too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #9 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-21 07:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=19672)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19672action=view)
work in progress, revised to use unmodified binutils
D'oh. Turns out p2align will do exactly what I want to the
--- Comment #10 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-21 07:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=19673)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19673action=view)
Minor fix of previous attachment.
(In reply to comment #9)
This is the resulting version that I'm bootstrapping
--- Comment #3 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-01-18
11:02 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
work in progress patch
This seems to cause *** No rule to make target `lto/@lto_binary_rea...@.o',
needed by `lto1'. error when build = host = target = i686-pc-linux-gnu
--
--- Comment #4 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 11:05 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #1)
work in progress patch
This seems to cause *** No rule to make target `lto/@lto_binary_rea...@.o',
needed by `lto1'. error when build = host = target =
--- Comment #5 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-01-18
11:51 ---
did you run autoconf?
Forgot to run it, to my disgrace. :) Sorry, false alarm.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #6 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 12:54 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
did you run autoconf?
Forgot to run it, to my disgrace. :) Sorry, false alarm.
No need to apologise, thanks for testing on linux for me!
--
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 16:18 ---
Should we perhaps rename all the lto_elf_ stuff to something else, if all of
this also Just Works with COFF?
Can we use a similar approach for Mach-O?
Big kudos for Dave, btw, for working on this.
--
steven at
--- Comment #8 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 16:35 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Should we perhaps rename all the lto_elf_ stuff to something else, if all of
this also Just Works with COFF?
As I said, WIP; I was certainly thinking of renaming it all to
lto_objfile_xxx
--- Comment #1 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-17 16:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=19636)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19636action=view)
work in progress patch
should be good for mingw as well.
needs some binutils support - will attach that here too,
--- Comment #2 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-17 16:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=19637)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19637action=view)
binutils support
This is needed to extend the .section directive in the pe-coff port of gas so
that we can tell it
50 matches
Mail list logo
