On 8/9/19 7:05 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 8/9/19 2:38 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 8/9/19 10:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> OK with that. I still think that making -flto use a jobserver if detected
>>> (but _not_ use the number of CPU cores by default) makes
>>> sense as an independent change
On 8/9/19 2:38 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 8/9/19 10:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> OK with that. I still think that making -flto use a jobserver if detected
>> (but _not_ use the number of CPU cores by default) makes
>> sense as an independent change.
>
> In order to address that, I'm suggesti
On 8/9/19 10:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> OK with that. I still think that making -flto use a jobserver if detected
> (but _not_ use the number of CPU cores by default) makes
> sense as an independent change.
In order to address that, I'm suggesting following patch that I've been
testing.
Mart
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:11 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> I'm sending slightly updated version of the patch
> where I allow -flto=auto in common_handle_option.
+One can also use @option{-flto=auto} to either use GNU make's
+job server mode to determine the number of parallel jobs, if available.
+Or
I'm sending slightly updated version of the patch
where I allow -flto=auto in common_handle_option.
Martin
>From cc04dfc9dbf2ed91a021093d1d27b81848ea726b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 06:44:25 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add -flto=auto option value.
gcc/ChangeLog:
On 8/2/19 11:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 8/2/19 11:15 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:50 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:10AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Can you strace i
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 8/2/19 11:15 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:50 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:10AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Can you strace if other fds are opened and not closed in the s
On 8/2/19 11:15 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:50 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:10AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Can you strace if other fds are opened and not closed in the spot you had
> it
> before? Advantage of doing it there
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:50 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:10AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > > Can you strace if other fds are opened and not closed in the spot you
> > > > had it
> > > > before? Advantage of doing it there is that it will not be done for
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:50 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:10AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > > Can you strace if other fds are opened and not closed in the spot you
> > > > had it
> > > > before? Advantage of doing it there is that it will not be done for
>
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:50 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:10AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > Can you strace if other fds are opened and not closed in the spot you had
> > > it
> > > before? Advantage of doing it there is that it will not be done for all
> > > the
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:10AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Can you strace if other fds are opened and not closed in the spot you had it
> > before? Advantage of doing it there is that it will not be done for all the
> > -E/-S/-c compilations when the linker is not spawned.
>
> I've used th
1 marxin users 64 Aug 2 10:33 2 -> /dev/pts/4
lrwx-- 1 marxin users 64 Aug 2 10:33 3 -> /dev/pts/2
dropping MAKEFLAGS in w -j16 --jobserver-auth=4,5
total 0
lrwx-- 1 marxin users 64 Aug 2 10:33 0 -> /dev/pts/4
l-wx-- 1 marxin users 64 Aug 2 10:33 1 -> /tmp/ccgExLq7
lr
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:30:47AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 8/1/19 4:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:34:09PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> Ok, after deeper discussion with Honza, I would like to suggest the
> >> original
> >> patch that was about proper detectio
ere is no space between sscanf and (.
Yep, I simplified that.
Martin
>
> Jakub
>
>From 9f96e16a7798fd3b60fa9ec5b7a66748212146c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:30:01 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Properly detect working jobserver in gcc driver.
gcc/C
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:34:09PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Ok, after deeper discussion with Honza, I would like to suggest the original
> patch that was about proper detection of jobserver.
>
> Can you please Jakub test the patch in your environment?
Isn't this done too late (as in, doesn't
9146784eb3f85e8b4547f2ab71c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:30:01 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Properly detect working jobserver in gcc driver.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-08-01 Martin Liska
PR lto/91313
* gcc.c (driver::maybe_run_linker): Test whether jobserver
is a
17 matches
Mail list logo
