> > On 4/28/10 10:26 , Manuel López-Ibá?ez wrote: > > >>>> Not yet, I mistakenly thought -fwhole-program is the same as -fwhopr > > >>>> and it is just for solving scaling issue of large program.(These two > > >>>> options do look similar :-). I shall try next. > > >>> > > >>> Yep, -fwhopr is not ideal name, but I guess there is not much > > >>> to do about it. > > > > > > It is marked as experimental, so if it is going to stay for GCC 4.6, > > > then we should change the name. I think one possibility discussed > > > somewhere is that LTO scales back automatically, so the option would > > > be not necessary. > > > > Yes. I think we should just keep -flto and make it use split > > compilation if needed. -fwhopr is only needed to explicitly enable it. > > My suggestion is to just keep -flto and invoke whopr with -flto=split > > or -flto=big (until the automatic threshold is added). > > Yep, I like this idea too. I hope to be able to drop "experimental" status > from mainline whopr soonish (basically I need to implement references and then > I will burn a lot of time fixing how clones are streamed to enable ipa-cp).
And do something about paralelizing the whopr build. I guess it means storing ltrans partition list into file and making collect2 to execute compilation and re-invent the Makefile code? It would be great if someone took look at this, I am not at all familiar with that code and in a way I would preffer it to stay that way ;)) Honza
