On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 19:54, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:19 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 19:40, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:52 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 19:52, Richard Biener
> > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:28 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 20:03, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:42, Richard Biener
> > > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:48 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 19:44, Richard Biener
> > > > > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:37 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > > > > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 19:10, Richard Biener
> > > > > > > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:31 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > > > > > > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 17:17, Richard Biener
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:04 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 15:44, Richard Biener
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Prathamesh
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulkarni
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 17:38, Richard Biener
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:17 AM Kugan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vivekanandarajah
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 03:57, H.J. Lu
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 6:45 PM Kugan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vivekanandarajah
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reviews.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 02:49, H.J. Lu
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 6:33 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 03:11,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 6:33 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 23:07,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard Biener
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10:04 AM Kugan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vivekanandarajah
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the pointers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 22:33, Richard Biener
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6:15 AM Kugan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vivekanandarajah
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20:41, Richard Biener
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at 10:39 AM Kugan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vivekanandarajah
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the PR, attached
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch adds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passing assembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options specified
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with -Wa, to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link-time driver.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > solution only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works for uniform
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Wa options
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > across all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TUs. As mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Biener,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-uniform -Wa
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > flags
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would require
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > either adjusting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > partitioning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > according to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > flags or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emitting multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object files
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from a single
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LTRANS CU. We
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consider this as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a follow up.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bootstrapped and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regression tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arm-linux-gcc. Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this OK for trunk?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While it works for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your simple cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is unlikely to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work in practice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs the assembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options be present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the link
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > command line. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might be the way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for people to go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they face the issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but then it needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be documented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the manual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is, with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTION
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (why singular? I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > available to cc1 we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could stream this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > string
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to lto_options and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > re-materialize it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at link time (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diagnose mismatches
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even if we like).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. I will try to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implement this. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea is if we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Wa,options as part
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the lto compile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during link time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like in:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -march=armv7-a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -mthumb -O2 -flto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Wa,-mimplicit-it=always,-mthumb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -c test.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -flto test.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should we stream
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this. Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cl_optimization
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has all the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > optimization flag
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided for compiler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > autogenerated and all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the flags are integer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values. Do you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > preference or example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where this should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In lto_write_options,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd simply append the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contents of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (with -Wa, prepended to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of them), then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > recover them in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lto-wrapper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for each TU and pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them down to the LTRANS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles (if they agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for all TUs, otherwise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd warn and drop them).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attached patch streams it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and also make sure that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the options are the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same for all the TUs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it is a bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > restrictive.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the best place to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > document
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS. We
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't seem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to document
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anywhere ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nowhere, it's an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation detail then.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attached patch passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regression and also fixes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the original ARM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel build issue with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tumb2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you try this with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multiple assembler options?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see you stream
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Wa,-mfpu=xyz,-mthumb but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then compare the whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > option strings so a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mismatch with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Wa,-mthumb,-mfpu=xyz would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diagnosed. If there's a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spec induced -Wa option do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we get to see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that as well? I can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagine -march=xyz enabling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a -Wa option
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for example.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + *collect_as =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XNEWVEC (char, strlen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (args_text) + 1);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + strcpy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (*collect_as, args_text);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there's strdup. Btw, I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not sure why you don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply leave
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the -Wa option in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged options
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [individually] and match
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them up but go the route of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comparing strings and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > carrying that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > along separately. I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that would be much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is attached patch which does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is OK?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't you need to also handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Xassembler? Since -Wa, doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work with comma in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assembler options, like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -mfoo=foo1,foo2, one needs to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Xassembler -mfoo=foo1,foo2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to pass -mfoo=foo1,foo2 to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assembler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -flto -O2 -Wa,-mcpu=zzz1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -mcpu=xxx1 -c foo.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -flto -O2 -Wa,-mcpu=zzz2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -mcpu=xxx2 -c bar.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What should be the option we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should provide for the final
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -flto foo.o bar.o -o out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think our ultimate aim is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle this in LTO partitioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, we should create partitioning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such that each partition has the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same -Wa options. This could also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle -Xassembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -mfoo=foo1,foo2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which H.J. Lu wanted. We need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modify the heuristics and do some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > performance testing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime we could push a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simpler solution which is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > accept
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Wa option if they are identical.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would fix at least some of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reported cases. Trying to work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out what is compatible options,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we ask the back-end to do this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not a straightforward strategy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be a maintenance nightmare.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless we can query GNU AS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somehow. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am missing something please let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +/* Store switches specified for as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with -Wa in COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + and place that in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > environment. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static void
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +putenv_COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (vec<char_p> vec)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + unsigned ix;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + char *opt;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + int len = vec.length ();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (!len)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_init (&collect_obstack);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_grow (&collect_obstack,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS=",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + sizeof ("COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS=") -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_grow (&collect_obstack,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "-Wa,", strlen ("-Wa,"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (vec, ix, opt)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_grow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (&collect_obstack, opt, strlen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (opt));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + --len;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (len)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_grow (&collect_obstack,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ",", strlen (","));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + xputenv (XOBFINISH
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (&collect_obstack, char *));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This missed the null terminator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attached patch addresses the review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comments I got so far.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (len)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_grow (&collect_obstack, ",",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strlen (","));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not sizeof (",") - 1?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess I copied and pasted it from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere else. We seem to use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both. I have changed it now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/lto-wrapper.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b/gcc/lto-wrapper.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 9a7bbd0c022..148c52906d1 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/gcc/lto-wrapper.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/gcc/lto-wrapper.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -253,6 +253,11 @@ merge_and_complain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (struct cl_decoded_option
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **decoded_options,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > break;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (foption->opt_index == OPT_Wa_)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + append_option (decoded_options,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decoded_options_count, foption);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (!(cl_options[foption->opt_index].flags
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & CL_TARGET))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > break;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not use "case OPT_Wa_:" here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + static const char *collect_as;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + for (unsigned int j = 1; j < count;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ++j)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + struct cl_decoded_option *option
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = &opts[j];
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (j == 1)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + collect_as = NULL;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why not simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > const char *collect_as = NULL?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to make sure that if we call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this from multiple places, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still works. I guess it is still going to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be the same. I have changed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it now as you have suggested.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this revised patch OK? I will do a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fresh bootstrap and regression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > testing before committing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In putenv_COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS you'll happily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Wa,-march=foo,bar out of -Xassembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -march=foo,bar which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will later cause us to fail to assemble
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with unknown assembler options.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > May I suggest to instead always use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Xassembler syntax in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS? Please also make sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to quote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options the same way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set_collect_gcc_options does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (with '', separated by spaces). Then the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lto-opts.c part
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes "easier" as you can simply copy the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > string to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obstack without wrapping it again with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > append_to_collect_gcc_options.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In lto-wrapper you then only have to handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OPT_Xassembler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You simply end up appending _all_ assembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options in order
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of TUs processed by lto-wrapper to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > final command (N times
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even if exactly the same). I'm also not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure how you can check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for positional equivalence (or if we even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should). With -Wa
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we could compare the full option string but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with separate -Xassembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we're having a more difficult task here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OTOH your patch doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do any comparing here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your append_compiler_wa_options should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > append_compiler_options, passing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Xassembler through.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since Kugan has left Linaro (and GCC), I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to take up this task.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have modified his patch to always pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assembler options via -Xassembler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it look OK ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure how we should proceed with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > error-checking for Xassembler ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In lto-wrapper, I suppose, we can append all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xassembler options for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TU into a single string, and then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do strcmp similar to previous patch(es) doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strcmp for -Wa options
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > string, although not sure if that's a good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there are multiple issues with the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one being how to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually interpret -Xassembler in the LTO
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First let me point out some bits in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS parts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (vec, ix, opt)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_grow (&collect_obstack,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "\'-Xassembler\' ",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + strlen ("\'-Xassembler\'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quoting of -Xassembler is not necessary.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_1grow (&collect_obstack, '\'');
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_grow (&collect_obstack, opt,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strlen (opt));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + obstack_grow (&collect_obstack, "\' ",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This adds a stray space after the last option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS gives the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression of listing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assembler options but the above adds GCC driver
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options - assembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options prepended by -Xassembler. IMHO we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should drop the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Xassembler emission from the above loop and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply emit the plain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assembler options. That requires adjustments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to lto_write_options,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding those -Xassembler options.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + char *asm_opts = XOBFINISH
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (&collect_obstack, char *);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + xputenv (XOBFINISH (&collect_obstack, char
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + xputenv (asm_opts);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That outputs the ENV twice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that we record things like --version or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --help into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assembler_options but I'm not sure the merging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of assembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options should be affected on whether one TU
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was compiled with -v
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or not. This might mean simply pruning those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in lto-options.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (not listing them in COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't tell the truth).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -252,6 +252,10 @@ merge_and_complain (struct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cl_decoded_option
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **decoded_options,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case OPT_SPECIAL_input_file:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > break;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + case OPT_Xassembler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + append_option (decoded_options,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decoded_options_count, foption);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this adds the same option over-and-over again,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possibly becoming unwieldly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of the function also assumes that option
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position isn't important
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which might or might not be true. So I think a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better course of action
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be to not handle Xassembler in the above
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > loop but do a separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one checking 1:1 equality of passed assembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Verify -Xassembler options are the same on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all TUs. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > j = 0;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i = 0;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned Xascount = 0;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while (j < *decoded_options_count && i <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fdeconded_options_count)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while (fdecoded_options[i].opt_index !=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OPT_Xassembler) ++i;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same for *decoded_options
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (stray Xassembler on one side)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fatal_error (...);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (strcmp (...) != 0)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fatal_error (...);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which means we use the -Xassembler options from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the first TU and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > above only verify those match those from all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other TUs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestions, I tried to address
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them in the attached patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It now gives errors on following cases during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link command:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -c -Xassembler -mfoo f1.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -c f2.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto f1.o f2.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -c -Xassembler -mfoo f1.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -c -Xassembler -mbar f2.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto f1.o f2.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -c -Xassembler -mfoo -Xassembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -mbar f1.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -c -Xassembler -mbar -Xassembler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -mfoo f2.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto f1.o f2.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -c f1.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mfoo f1.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto f1.o f2.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mfoo f1.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mfoo f2.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mbar f1.o f2.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following correct case works:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mfoo f1.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mfoo f2.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto f1.o f2.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think 5] should work as well and behave as -mfoo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -mbar at assembler time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto f1.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto f2.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mfoo f1.o f2.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which should work as well (I think even this use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't work right now?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please suggest how to add the above
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cases in dejaGNU format ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure how to write multiple files test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with dejaGNU.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > look at multi-file testcases in gcc.dg/lto/, use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > testcase_0.c testcase_1.c,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can use dg-additional-options to pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Xassembler (but eventually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't work on the first TU), also there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some additional option
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the link step directive (just look into the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing tests).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, do you think it's better if we append
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > xassembler options to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_GCC itself rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than maintaining COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Xassembler" prepended ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because in both lto_write_options,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and run_gcc, I am reconstructing "-Xassembler"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <opt> for each opt in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not quite sure how Xassembler options were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fdecoded_options because I am not appending them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicitly. IIUC, find_and_merge_options will add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Xassembler to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fdecoded_options when it's NULL ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (!fdecoded_options)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fdecoded_options = f2decoded_options;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fdecoded_options_count =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > f2decoded_options_count;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since merge_and_complain does not handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OPT_Xassembler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments on the patch. First avoid <algorithm>,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just use MIN/MAX
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if really needed. I'd elide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > xassembler_opts[_count]. For 6] you want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unconditionally append the options.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In find_and_merge_options I'd have avoided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > xassembler_opts[_count]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by simply adding another nested loop over both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > decoded options
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > requiring matching up OPT_Xassembler 1:1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestions. The current patch removes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > xasembler_opts[_count] and uses nested loop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for comparison.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In find_and_merge_options, I used curr_xopts[_count]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to hold all the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > options passed to current TU.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IIUC, f2decoded_options will be overwritten each time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the loop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > while fetching strings from .opts section, and will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not contain all options passed to current TU. And I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dropped validating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for cmdline opts which passes 5] and 6].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that look OK ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Huh, it looks odd. Why didn't you simply add the loop
> > > > > > > > > > > > to merge_and_complain?
> > > > > > > > > > > > That way you verify each TUs arguments against the
> > > > > > > > > > > > first TUs.
> > > > > > > > > > > My concern was that it might perhaps not work if .opts
> > > > > > > > > > > section in LTO
> > > > > > > > > > > object file
> > > > > > > > > > > contained multiple strings ? So fdecoded_options in
> > > > > > > > > > > merge_and_complain
> > > > > > > > > > > may not hold all options passed to TU. Currently that
> > > > > > > > > > > isn't an issue,
> > > > > > > > > > > since the section
> > > > > > > > > > > contains only one string (since we append '\0' once at
> > > > > > > > > > > end of
> > > > > > > > > > > lto_write_options).
> > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering will this break if that changed and .opts
> > > > > > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > multiple strings instead ?
> > > > > > > > > > > In attached patch, I placed the loop in
> > > > > > > > > > > merge_and_complain.
> > > > > > > > > > > Does that look OK ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > + for (unsigned i = 0; i < f2decoded_options_count;
> > > > > > > > > > i++)
> > > > > > > > > > + append_option (&curr_xopts, &curr_xopts_count,
> > > > > > > > > > &f2decoded_options[i]);
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > why this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > + while (j < curr_xopts_count
> > > > > > > > > > + && curr_xopts[j].opt_index != OPT_Xassembler)
> > > > > > > > > > + j++;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > just walk over f2decoded_options here?
> > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > Um, did you perhaps look at the previous version ?
> > > > > > > > > In the last (and current) patch, I had removed the loop from
> > > > > > > > > find_and_merge_options
> > > > > > > > > and placed it in in merge_and_complain instead which avoids
> > > > > > > > > curr_xopts[_count]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Huh, maybe. It looks OK now (see comments below about -m
> > > > > > > > handling).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > obstack_grow (&temporary_obstack, " '-Xassembler'
> > > > > > > > > > ",
> > > > > > > > > > + strlen (" '-Xassembler' "));
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > there's no need to quote '-Xassembler'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > + tok = strtok_r (NULL, " ", &saveptr);
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > hmm, so we quote -Xassembler arguments with ' but you split
> > > > > > > > > > apart on " ",
> > > > > > > > > > that's not going to work. See
> > > > > > > > > > get_options_from_collect_gcc_options on
> > > > > > > > > > how to parse it. I suggest to refactor that function to be
> > > > > > > > > > usable in this
> > > > > > > > > > context. The same issue is present in lto_write_options,
> > > > > > > > > > so the function
> > > > > > > > > > should eventually reside in opts-common.c?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestions. I refactored parsing code from
> > > > > > > > > get_options_from_collect_gcc_options
> > > > > > > > > and put it into parse_options_from_collect_gcc_options, which
> > > > > > > > > is then
> > > > > > > > > used by both lto_write_options
> > > > > > > > > and get_options_from_collect_gcc_options.
> > > > > > > > > Does it look OK ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + parse_options_from_collect_gcc_options (collect_gcc_options,
> > > > > > > > + &argv_obstack, &argc);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > you wanted to pass 'false' here for the defaulted arg? I think
> > > > > > > > it would be much
> > > > > > > > cleaner to elide the init_obstack parameter and initialize the
> > > > > > > > obstack in the
> > > > > > > > callers where required.
> > > > > > > Oops, sorry, yes false was correct there. I removed defaulted
> > > > > > > arg, and
> > > > > > > initialize obstack
> > > > > > > by called in attached patch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > After dropping quote from -Xassembler, it seems not to be
> > > > > > > > > inserted in
> > > > > > > > > argv in get_options_from_collect_gcc_options.
> > > > > > > > > So I kept it as-is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fair enough.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How should we handle conflicting argument to options
> > > > > > > > > > > > > passed on cmdline ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For eg:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mfoo=arg1 f1.c -o f1.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mfoo=arg1 f2.c -o f2.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc -O -flto -Xassembler -mfoo=arg2 f1.o f2.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we complain that arg1, arg2 differ or let arg2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > take precedence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > over arg1 for -mfoo ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (It seems currently, the patch does latter).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think appending the linker -Xassembler makes most
> > > > > > > > > > > > sense, appropriately
> > > > > > > > > > > > diagnosing is difficult here and repeating compile-time
> > > > > > > > > > > > assembler options
> > > > > > > > > > > > will be common.
> > > > > > > > > > > OK, thanks for the clarification.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So I am worried that we make programs fail to compile with
> > > > > > > > > > -flto with this
> > > > > > > > > > patch due to the fatal_error on mismatched assembler
> > > > > > > > > > options. Consider
> > > > > > > > > > targets that, via specs processing, append assembler
> > > > > > > > > > options from
> > > > > > > > > > -m options?
> > > > > > > > > Hmm, would ignoring Xassembler options that don't begin with
> > > > > > > > > "-m" be
> > > > > > > > > an acceptable solution ?
> > > > > > > > > In the patch, I am skipping Xassembler args that don't begin
> > > > > > > > > with "-m".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you check whether specs processing introudced assembler
> > > > > > > > options appear
> > > > > > > > in COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS? For x86 that's for example -msse2avx
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > is translated to -msse2avx. For arm it's stuff like
> > > > > > > > -mbig-endian which gets
> > > > > > > > translated to -EB (no -m ...). For those the peferece is
> > > > > > > > probably to keep
> > > > > > > > the GCC driver option rather than turning them into -Xassembler
> > > > > > > > ones.
> > > > > > > Ah, didn't know about this. IIUC, you mean the options in
> > > > > > > ${builddir}/gcc/specs ?
> > > > > > > -mbig-endian translates to -EB and -mlittle-endian to -EL etc.
> > > > > > > I passed -O -flto -mbig-endian and the driver did not seem to
> > > > > > > translate it into Xassembler opt
> > > > > > > (collect_as_options was NULL), but passed -EB to assembler.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think we want to skip assembler options not matching -m
> > > > > > > > (see -EB ...).
> > > > > > > > We may want to skip obviously harmless ones though, but not
> > > > > > > > sure how
> > > > > > > > to identify them :/ -Xassembler -v, --version or -version
> > > > > > > > might be obvious
> > > > > > > > candidates but of course the actual harmless options can not
> > > > > > > > only differ
> > > > > > > > from target to target but also from assembler to assembler...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That said, I guess it's fine if only explicitely given options
> > > > > > > > end up in
> > > > > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS, not ones via specs processing so that's
> > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > to verify.
> > > > > > > Indeed, that seems to be the case to me.
> > > > > > > Does the attached patch look OK ?
> > > > > > Hi Richard, ping ?
> > > > > > Just wondering if this patch'd be suitable for stage-4 ?
> > > > > > Altho not exactly a regression, it blocks building kernel with LTO
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > ARM targets,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm curious which assembler option is needed for kernel build and if
> > > > > just handling link-time -Wa,... would be enough here (thus the
> > > > > COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS export plus the run_gcc lto-wrapper hunk).
> > > > The option was -mimplicit-it=always:
> > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg635611.html
> > > > PR78353 contains reduced test-case of same issue.
> > > > IIRC, Kugan's original patch, which only handled -Wa at link-time,
> > > > fixed it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > and I was hoping if we could get this pushed in GCC-10.
> > > > >
> > > > > So we discussed this locally a bit and agreed that issueing a
> > > > > fatal_error
> > > > > on option mismatch isn't good progression. Instead can you output
> > > > > a non-fatal diagnostic to stderr and drop all -Xassembler options when
> > > > > we see a mismatch (to get back previous behavior)? To be visible
> > > > > the user unfortunately will have to pass -Wl,-debug to the link
> > > > > command-line but that's better than nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > So all but the merge_and_complain hunk are OK I think and that hunk
> > > > > needs some adjustment to avoid failing the link.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we also should adjust documentation like with
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> > > > > index 3e47d06f0d5..6f0698b16bf 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> > > > > @@ -11159,6 +11159,12 @@ conflicting translation units. Specifically
> > > > > precedence; and for example @option{-ffp-contract=off} takes
> > > > > precedence
> > > > > over @option{-ffp-contract=fast}. You can override them at link
> > > > > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > +When you need to pass options to the assembler via @option{-Wa} or
> > > > > +@option{-Xassembler} make sure to either compile such translation
> > > > > +units with @option{-fno-lto} or consistently use the same assembler
> > > > > +options on all translation units. You can alternatively also
> > > > > +specify assembler options at LTO link time.
> > > > > +
> > > > > To enable debug info generation you need to supply @option{-g} at
> > > > > compile time. If any of the input files at link time were built
> > > > > with debug info generation enabled the link will enable debug info
> > > > Thanks for the suggestions, I have updated the patch accordingly.
> > > > Does it look OK ?
> > >
> > > + else if (i < *decoded_options_count && j ==
> > > fdecoded_options_count)
> > > + fatal_error (input_location, "Extra option to -Xassembler: %s.",
> > > + (*decoded_options)[i].arg);
> > > + else if (i == *decoded_options_count && j <
> > > fdecoded_options_count)
> > > + fatal_error (input_location, "Extra option to -Xassembler: %s.",
> > > + fdecoded_options[j].arg);
> > > + else if (strcmp ((*decoded_options)[i].arg,
> > > fdecoded_options[j].arg))
> > >
> > > please use warning () here, too (and set xassembler_options_error).
> > >
> > > + warning_at (input_location, 0,
> > > + "Options to Xassembler do not match: %s, %s,"
> > > + " dropping all -Xassembler and -Wa options.",
> > > + (*decoded_options)[i].arg,
> > > fdecoded_options[j].arg);
> > >
> > > input_location is not meaningful here so just omit it by using warning ().
> > >
> > > + case OPT_Xassembler:
> > >
> > > Add
> > >
> > > /* When we detected a mismatch in assembler options between
> > > the input CUs
> > > fall back to previous behavior of ignoring them. */
> > > + if (xassembler_options_error)
> > > + continue;
> > > + break;
> > >
> > > OK with those changes. Did you try if the diagnostics are visible
> > > (when you add -Wl,-debug or/and -Wl,-v to the link command?)
> > Made the changes in attached patch, thanks.
> > The diagnostics are visible with -Wl,-v and -Wl,-debug.
> > LTO bootstrap in progress on x86_64 and arm.
> > OK to commit if passes ?
>
> OK.
Thanks, I committed the patch in f1a681a174cdfb82e62c246d6f4add9a25fc2e43,
after verifying LTO+bootstrap passed on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am still looking into the tests part, will address
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that in next patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kugan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > H.J.
