Sjodin, Jan wrote:
> I agree. Also, the LTO requirements and high-level design document
> states that the external format should be "compiler-independent" and it
> should be possible for other tools to read and write that format. Is
> this still a goal?
It was a goal for me, but I don't think oth
> On 5/2/07, Sjodin, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Thanks for all the responses. It seems like LTO will have to wait for
> >the tuples or there will be a lot of throw-away code.
>
> If you really only can think of LTO as the reader/writer, then perhaps
> yes. But if you read back this thread,
M
> To: Sjodin, Jan
> Cc: Diego Novillo; Joseph S. Myers; Ian Lance Taylor; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Information about LTO
>
> On 5/2/07, Sjodin, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks for all the responses. It seems like LTO will have to wait
for
> >
On 5/2/07, Sjodin, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for all the responses. It seems like LTO will have to wait for
the tuples or there will be a lot of throw-away code.
If you really only can think of LTO as the reader/writer, then perhaps
yes. But if you read back this thread, you would
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:09 PM
> To: Sjodin, Jan
> Cc: Diego Novillo; Joseph S. Myers; Ian Lance Taylor; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Information about LTO
>
> On 5/1/07, Sjodin, Jan &
On 5/1/07, Sjodin, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can someone give similar information about LTO? How many people
(full/part time) and how long time it will take? How much work is LTO
compared to the tuple representation?
A vast amount more if we're going to work on LTO with the current
GIMPLE
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
> Of Diego Novillo
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:26 PM
> To: Sjodin, Jan
> Cc: Joseph S. Myers; Ian Lance Taylor; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Information about LTO
>
> On
On 5/1/07, Sjodin, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know how many people that are currently working on the
tuple representation and can perhaps guess how many months it would take to
get into mainline?
Aldy is working full time on it, atm. Richard, Andrew and I may start
working on
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph S. Myers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:07 PM
> To: Diego Novillo
> Cc: Sjodin, Jan; Ian Lance Taylor; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Information about LTO
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2007, Diego Novillo wrote
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Some amount of parallelism may occur, but we will have to adapt many LTO
> chunks when the tuple work goes in mainline. The data structures for
> the IL will be completely different, after all.
Also, LTO hasn't been merged from mainline in a long time;
Sjodin, Jan wrote on 05/01/07 13:54:
> Does LTO have any hard dependencies on the gimple-tuples? I imagine the
> on-disk representation could be separate from any internal
> representation. I am curious if the two efforts can be worked on in
> parallel and how well they can be separated, since the
not being fully encoded
and
> > there are still some things that need to be explicitly represented
in
> > the IR.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 11:43 AM
> To: Sjodin, Jan
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.or
On May 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Sjodin, Jan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi I am new to GCC development and I have a few questions about LTO.
What has been done since the last status report in January? I would
also like to know what is most important to work on right now
"Sjodin, Jan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi I am new to GCC development and I have a few questions about LTO.
> What has been done since the last status report in January? I would
> also like to know what is most important to work on right now to make
> progress on LTO (e.g. type system, int
14 matches
Mail list logo
