Post-LTO branch merge (tr...@152453) report for i386-*-freebsd7.2

Installed /usr/ports/devel/libelf [0.8.12] on i386-*-freebsd7.2. Explicitly added "--enable-lto --with-libelf=/usr/local" to configure line. (Stock system's /usr/include/libelf.h missing elf_getshdrstrndx().) New failures for i386-*-freebsd7.2 (seems in-line with other port reports): gcc: FAIL: g

Re: LTO branch merged into trunk - trunk remains CLOSED

Diego Novillo writes: > The LTO branch has been merged into trunk at revision 152434. > [...] Congrats. > [...] That's it. The result should, in principle, execute faster > but our IPA cost models are still not tweaked for LTO. We've seen > speedups as well as slo

Re: LTO branch merged into trunk - trunk remains CLOSED

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 17:12:17 -0400 > Diego Novillo wrote: > >> Instructions on how to enable LTO support are described in the >> manual.  The following is a summary: >> >> - Install libelf 0.8.12+ (http://www.mr511.de/software/libelf-0.8.12.tar.gz

Re: LTO branch merged into trunk - trunk remains CLOSED

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 17:12:17 -0400 Diego Novillo wrote: > Instructions on how to enable LTO support are described in the > manual. The following is a summary: > > - Install libelf 0.8.12+ (http://www.mr511.de/software/libelf-0.8.12.tar.gz) > Other versions of libelf are commonly installed in L

Re: LTO branch merged into trunk - trunk remains CLOSED

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 19:40, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 18:24, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> The LTO branch has been merged into trunk at revision 152434. >> >> Btw, I think this deser

Re: LTO branch merged into trunk - trunk remains CLOSED

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 18:24, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> The LTO branch has been merged into trunk at revision 152434. > > Btw, I think this deserves a news entry on the main page as well as > (obviously) >

Re: LTO branch merged into trunk - trunk remains CLOSED

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > The LTO branch has been merged into trunk at revision 152434. Btw, I think this deserves a news entry on the main page as well as (obviously) an entry for gcc-4.5/changes.html. Richard.

Re: LTO branch merged into trunk - trunk remains CLOSED

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 17:32, Richard Guenther wrote: > Note that one missing feature is picking up entries from static library > archives at link time. This is true when using GNU ld. But it works just fine if you configure gcc with --enable-gold and compile with -use-linker-plugin. Diego.

Re: LTO branch merged into trunk - trunk remains CLOSED

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > The LTO branch has been merged into trunk at revision 152434. ... > To enable LTO, simply add the flag '-flto' to both compile and > link commands.  It doesn't really matter whether you compile and > link in separ

LTO branch merged into trunk - trunk remains CLOSED

The LTO branch has been merged into trunk at revision 152434. Please note that trunk remains CLOSED. I would like to give automatic testers a chance to pick up the merge and test it in isolation. I plan to open trunk in 48 hours (Mon 5 Oct). Following this message, I will post the final 13

[LTO] Branch frozen for final merge

I've merged lto into trunk and am currently preparing the final set of patches to submit. Please do not commit anything to the branch. Diego.

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Rafael Espindola wrote: Is it IO bound because the LTO files are abnormally large? What kinds of file sizes are you seeing? With the streamer debug enable we had over 40x the normal object size. Without it, it looks to be 4 or 5 times if I remember correctly.

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> Is it IO bound because the LTO files are abnormally large? What kinds of > file sizes are you seeing? With the streamer debug enable we had over 40x the normal object size. Without it, it looks to be 4 or 5 times if I remember correctly. > -Chris Cheers, -- Rafael Avila de Espindola Google

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> The LTO branch is starting to get some semblance of stability, though >> is by no means in any kind of mergeable state. I have updated the >> wiki page to reflect the

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> My testing indicates otherwise, apart from the lack of support for some > newer Solaris features. I presume it's again the combination Sun as + GNU ld? -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Joe Buck writes: > > Ok, I see. Maybe we can extend Sun ld to handle that, given that the > > sources are now open via OpenSolaris. > > Or just use GNU ld on Solaris, it works. My testing indicates otherwise, apart from the lack of support for some newer Solaris features. Rainer

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:18:13AM -0800, Rainer Orth wrote: > But at least on Solaris, using GNU ld is sort of a problem: there are lots > of GCC testsuite regressions right now, and GNU ld doesn't support several > of Sun ld's advanced features, which is why I very much prefer to use the > native

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:11:51AM -0800, Rainer Orth wrote: > Rafael Espindola writes: > > > > I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Solaris and IRIX *are* ELF targets > > > (just not Linux, so using the system linker, not GNU ld). If I understand > > > you correctly, they might just work (modul

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Joseph S. Myers writes: > > Unfortunately, gold doesn't even build on non-Linux targets: see PR > > gold/7024. > > That actually appears to be a list of issues with non-Linux hosts, not > non-Linux targets. Right, I had ignored non-native builds since I rarely do them. > I would certainly hope

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:18, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > I would certainly hope both LTO and gold should work on a wide range of > non-Linux hosts (if anyone cares to contribute patches for such support), > including non-ELF hosts, even though restricted to ELF targets at least in > the case of go

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Diego Novillo writes: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:18, Rainer Orth > wrote: > > > But at least on Solaris, using GNU ld is sort of a problem: there are lots > > of GCC testsuite regressions right now, and GNU ld doesn't support several > > of Sun ld's advanced features, which is why I very much

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:18, Rainer Orth wrote: > But at least on Solaris, using GNU ld is sort of a problem: there are lots > of GCC testsuite regressions right now, and GNU ld doesn't support several > of Sun ld's advanced features, which is why I very much prefer to use the > native linker

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Rainer Orth wrote: > Rafael Espindola writes: > > > > I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Solaris and IRIX *are* ELF targets > > > (just not Linux, so using the system linker, not GNU ld). If I understand > > > you correctly, they might just work (modulo bugs)? > > > > Th

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Diego Novillo writes: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:11, Rainer Orth > wrote: > > > Unfortunately, gold doesn't even build on non-Linux targets: see PR > > gold/7024. > > Note that you don't really need gold to use LTO. It works just fine > with GNU ld. But at least on Solaris, using GNU ld is

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:11, Rainer Orth wrote: > Unfortunately, gold doesn't even build on non-Linux targets: see PR > gold/7024. Note that you don't really need gold to use LTO. It works just fine with GNU ld. What you get with gold and the linker plugin is mostly the ability to open up .a

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Rafael Espindola writes: > > I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Solaris and IRIX *are* ELF targets > > (just not Linux, so using the system linker, not GNU ld). If I understand > > you correctly, they might just work (modulo bugs)? > > That should work. You still might need to extend the link

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 06:56, Rainer Orth wrote: > Any chance that it works on non-GNU/Linux ELF targets (like Solaris, IRIX)? Yes, it should work on any ELF target. Diego.

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:36, Richard Guenther wrote: > /gcc/spec/sb-haydn-df-64/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:1102: internal > compiler error: Segmentation fault > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > See for instructions. >

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 00:06, Chris Lattner wrote: > Thanks for the summary, it's great to see the progress of the project. Do > you have any compile time numbers for LTO so far? If you pick a mid-sided > program from spec or even a bootstrap, how much slower is LTO than compiling > at -O3? T

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Solaris and IRIX *are* ELF targets > (just not Linux, so using the system linker, not GNU ld). If I understand > you correctly, they might just work (modulo bugs)? That should work. You still might need to extend the linker to support IL in static librarie

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Rafael Espindola writes: > > Any chance that it works on non-GNU/Linux ELF targets (like Solaris, IRIX)? > > We need ELF for storing the IL files. In theory that is only a > container format and you could crate a plugin for the IRIX linker to > read it. I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Sola

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> Any chance that it works on non-GNU/Linux ELF targets (like Solaris, IRIX)? We need ELF for storing the IL files. In theory that is only a container format and you could crate a plugin for the IRIX linker to read it. >Rainer Cheers, -- Rafael Avila de Espindola Google | Gordon House

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Diego Novillo writes: > Essentially, the biggest areas where we need help are: > > - Testing on other targets. We have only tested on x86 (32 and 64 > bit) targets. I'm pretty sure other targets are either non-functional > or show major breakage. We'd appreciate any daily tester that could >

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:58, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> LTO failed to bootstrap on RHEL5/ia32 and RHEL5/ia64: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38992 > > Thanks. This was known to us, though we had not filed a request. > Essenti

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> Hi Diego, > > Thanks for the summary, it's great to see the progress of the project. Do > you have any compile time numbers for LTO so far? If you pick a mid-sided > program from spec or even a bootstrap, how much slower is LTO than compiling > at -O3? We haven't tried a bootstrap with LTO ena

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Jan 27, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: The LTO branch is starting to get some semblance of stability, though is by no means in any kind of mergeable state. I have updated the wiki page to reflect the current status (Simon, Rafael, Doug, Cary, please make sure I haven't m

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 17:05, H.J. Lu wrote: > What can I help to implement the fix? Thanks. I just updated bug 38992 with the IRC thread where we discussed a possible fix. I don't think it would be too complicated. Diego.

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:58, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> LTO failed to bootstrap on RHEL5/ia32 and RHEL5/ia64: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38992 > > Thanks. This was known to us, though we had not filed a request. > Essentia

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:58, H.J. Lu wrote: > LTO failed to bootstrap on RHEL5/ia32 and RHEL5/ia64: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38992 Thanks. This was known to us, though we had not filed a request. Essentially, Red Hat distros use a different libelf than the one we have b

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > The LTO branch is starting to get some semblance of stability, though > is by no means in any kind of mergeable state. I have updated the > wiki page to reflect the current status (Simon, Rafael, Doug, Cary, > please make su

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:24, H.J. Lu wrote: > I can try to run tests on Linux/ia32, Linux/ia64 and Linux/x86-64. Thanks. > Does it require gold? No, It does not require gold. However, if you have gold installed, you can use -use-linker-plugin to use the linker plugin to communicate between

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > The LTO branch is starting to get some semblance of stability, though > is by no means in any kind of mergeable state. I have updated the > wiki page to reflect the current status (Simon, Rafael, Doug, Cary, > please make su

Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

The LTO branch is starting to get some semblance of stability, though is by no means in any kind of mergeable state. I have updated the wiki page to reflect the current status (Simon, Rafael, Doug, Cary, please make sure I haven't missed anything substantial): http://gcc.gnu.org

Re: [lto][RFC] Keeping the lto branch pegged to 4.4

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are starting to use the lto branch internally for testing and we > would like to have some degree of stability for the next few months. > > Currently, the lto branch is tracking 4.4, but we will soon

Re: [lto][RFC] Keeping the lto branch pegged to 4.4

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 06:16, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not expect this to happen this year. Sure. That still means 'soon' in our timeline. I was thinking before March. Diego.

Re: [lto][RFC] Keeping the lto branch pegged to 4.4

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are starting to use the lto branch internally for testing and we > would like to have some degree of stability for the next few months. > > Currently, the lto branch is tracking 4.4, but we will soon

[lto][RFC] Keeping the lto branch pegged to 4.4

We are starting to use the lto branch internally for testing and we would like to have some degree of stability for the next few months. Currently, the lto branch is tracking 4.4, but we will soon move to stage 1, which will bring a whole lot of instability that we would like to avoid. Ken, Jan

Re: New LTO branch ready

On 6/19/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Daniel Berlin wrote: > Hi guys, I have merged all patches touching lto/ into the new lto branch Thank you! Did you also pull over Kenny's LTO-writer code? Yup. I have the complete list of revisions merged with their log en

Re: New LTO branch ready

Daniel Berlin wrote: > Hi guys, I have merged all patches touching lto/ into the new lto branch Thank you! Did you also pull over Kenny's LTO-writer code? I'll try to get it compiling soon. > I will perform merges from mainline to branch every week or two, > unless you guy

New LTO branch ready

Hi guys, I have merged all patches touching lto/ into the new lto branch I'm almost 100% positive the result will not compile. There are no interesting conflicts to report (most were just formatting changes). I have not merged ChangeLog.lto onto the new branch, since it looked like it

Re: LTO Branch

Andrew Pinski wrote: >> After the LTO proposal (http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/lto/lto.pdf) was >> posted, a fruitful discussion ensued. One of the key topics that arose >> was the the possibility of using LLVM instead of the TREE-SSA >> optimizers. Things have quieted down on the public lists since

Re: LTO Branch

On May 22, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: We have had some very useful discussions with Chris Lattner and other folks at Apple. Our conclusion is that LLVM does indeed have a very clean design and is very promising technology, but that there is still a lot of technical work to do before

Re: LTO Branch

> > After the LTO proposal (http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/lto/lto.pdf) was > posted, a fruitful discussion ensued. One of the key topics that arose > was the the possibility of using LLVM instead of the TREE-SSA > optimizers. Things have quieted down on the public lists since then, > but the need

LTO Branch

After the LTO proposal (http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/lto/lto.pdf) was posted, a fruitful discussion ensued. One of the key topics that arose was the the possibility of using LLVM instead of the TREE-SSA optimizers. Things have quieted down on the public lists since then, but the need for link-time