On 2013.12.06 at 10:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 6 Dec 2013, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you need an additional -fparallelism? Wouldn't > > > > > -fwpa=... be a better match, matching -flto=...? As we already > > > > > pass down a -fwpa option to WPA this would make things easier, no? > > > > > > > > My plan was to possibly use same option later for parallelizing more > > > > parts of > > > > compiler, not only WPA streaming. Streaming in may have some chance if > > > > we get > > > > into thread safety of GGC or move sufficient amount of stuff out of > > > > GGC. Also > > > > we can parallelize inliner heuristic or IPA-PTA if it will ever work. > > > > So it > > > > would make sense with -flto-partition=none and perhaps with local > > > > optimization, > > > > too. > > > > > > I'd like to drop -flto-partition=none eventually. It's just one more > > > path through the compiler to support ... > > > > > > > But I can definitely update the patch to use -fwpa=N and we can deal > > > > with this > > > > once this becomes real. (i.e. I have no clue how to parallelize inliner > > > > without > > > > making its decisions dependent on the parallelizm and declining with > > > > parallelizm > > > > increased nor I have real plans for stream in procedure) > > > > > > Please. > > > > > > > Hi, > > here is updated patch. Sorry for taking time, I should have more time for > > hacking again > > now... > > Ok.
Honza, it looks like you forgot to commit the patch. (I see nice speedups with it and it would be unfortunate if it fell through the cracks.) -- Markus
