--- Comment #50 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 10:38 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: davek
Date: Mon Jun 14 10:38:18 2010
New Revision: 160722
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160722
Log:
ChangeLog:
Backport from mainline:
2010-04-27 Dave Korn
--- Comment #49 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 14:33 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: ro
Date: Fri Jun 4 14:32:19 2010
New Revision: 160269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160269
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2010-04-27 Dave Korn
--- Comment #48 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 02:26 ---
Sorry, missed a couple of files the first time round and had to check them in
subsequently. Oops. *sheepish grin*
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #47 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 02:25 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: davek
Date: Tue Apr 27 02:24:51 2010
New Revision: 158764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158764
Log:
Missing changelog from last commit!
ChangeLog:
2010-04-27 Dav
--- Comment #46 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 02:24 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: davek
Date: Tue Apr 27 02:23:56 2010
New Revision: 158763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158763
Log:
Missing file from last commit!
ChangeLog:
2010-04-27 Dave Kor
--- Comment #45 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 02:23 ---
Subject: Bug 42776
Author: davek
Date: Tue Apr 27 02:22:40 2010
New Revision: 158762
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158762
Log:
ChangeLog:
PR lto/42776
* configure.ac (--enabl
--- Comment #44 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-24 02:46 ---
nice, it's a bit difficult to handle autoreconf in mingw :D, I need a specific
version on my linux box and then make a patch including configure and makefiles
changes :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
--- Comment #43 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-23 16:13 ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> Fixed?
>
Still awaiting build system maintainer approval as per your request. Ten days
is just on the lower margin of the range that I let a patch wait before pinging
it; I'll do so shor
--- Comment #42 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-23 16:10
---
Fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #41 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 06:01 ---
Thanks everyone for all the help with testing and validation :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #40 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 05:58 ---
Submitted to -patches list at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00612.html
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #39 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-12 16:55 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> So if I understand correctly, the "state of things" at the moment is this:
>
> Without LTO:
> > Time: 419.938 sec (6 m 59 s)
>
> with LTO incl linker flags:
> > Time: 443.047 sec (7 m 23 s)
--- Comment #38 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 16:10 ---
Could be interesting for Tru64 UNIX, which uses ECOFF, too.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #37 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 15:58 ---
LTO for Mach-O is now being tracked in bug 43729.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #36 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 13:30 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/512/Lectures/30IDFAO.pdf
Thanks for the link, not just because it's full of intersting information,
but also because I now have a new candidate for
most-un
--- Comment #35 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 10:40 ---
So if I understand correctly, the "state of things" at the moment is this:
Without LTO:
> Time: 419.938 sec (6 m 59 s)
with LTO incl linker flags:
> Time: 443.047 sec (7 m 23 s)
In other words, "with LTO" is ~6% s
--- Comment #34 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-11 23:58 ---
good point :) it should be written in caps, it's not common usage of linking
flags :)
anyway the reason is easy to understand
results aren't exactly as expected by at least not crazy :)
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
--- Comment #33 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-11 22:59 ---
A common mistake is to not pass the optimizer flags properly to the linker.
There is a thread about that, too:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00438.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
--- Comment #32 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-11 17:38 ---
I've repeated the test multiple times, I already done scan benchmarks before
I think I need to check if I have same results on linux
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #31 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-10 16:20 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> there is something odd.
> with lto:
> Time: 674.484 sec (11 m 14 s)
> without:
> Time: 419.938 sec (6 m 59 s)
> a lot slower using lto?
Is it possible you're just seeing the effects of
--- Comment #30 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 19:48 ---
there is something odd.
with lto:
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
Known viruses: 754681
Engine version: de...@clamwin MinGW - Apr 9 2010
Scanned directories: 1
Scanned files: 4402
Infected files: 0
Data scanned: 9
--- Comment #29 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 18:30 ---
using -flto links, but looks like it links in a different way
while linking llvm part I get ice:
In member function 'RefineAbstractType':
lto1: internal compiler error: in input_gimple_stmt, at lto-streamer-in.c:1108
P
--- Comment #28 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 04:10 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> these functions are static
>
Hmm, some kind of inlining problem maybe? There's a thread on the main GCC
list at the moment about problems with WHOPR, so I don't know to what extent
it's
--- Comment #27 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 04:04 ---
these functions are static
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #26 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 04:02 ---
I'm getting a lot of:
lto1: warning: visibility attribute not supported in this configuration;
ignored
in the linking phase
using -fwhopr
and the link fails with a lot of:
../../libclamav/7z.wpa.ltrans.o:7z.wpa.o:(.da
--- Comment #25 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 03:57 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> Updated for current trunk, just compiled a cross gcc for mingw
> I'll test if works
>
Thank you! Now that 4.6 is open I'll finish the work on this (the
autoconfery needs tightening up
--- Comment #24 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 03:56 ---
Updated for current trunk, just compiled a cross gcc for mingw
I'll test if works
--
sherpya at netfarm dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #23 from sherpya at netfarm dot it 2010-04-09 03:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=20342)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20342&action=view)
updated for current trunk
obsoletes respin-3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-13 10:23
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > What is the plan for this bug, fix it for GCC 4.5.0 or for later?
>
> I don't really think I can argue that this is stage3 material, so the plan is
> to fi
--- Comment #21 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-13 01:06 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> What is the plan for this bug, fix it for GCC 4.5.0 or for later?
I don't really think I can argue that this is stage3 material, so the plan is
to fix it when trunk reopens for 4.6, and I
--- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 20:57 ---
What is the plan for this bug, fix it for GCC 4.5.0 or for later?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #19 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-04 17:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=19805)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19805&action=view)
Further bugfix
fixed silly cut'n'pasto in the endianness layer which was truncating 4-byte
fields to 2 bytes.
--- Comment #18 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 16:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=19797)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19797&action=view)
Bugfix of -respin-1
Opps! Forgot to update the lto language hook definitions. All fixed now.
--
davek at g
--- Comment #17 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 14:48 ---
TO-DO: (additions invited, this is not by any means a complete list!)
- Add autoconfigury to ensure binutils supports .section directive alignment
syntax, and disable LTO if not.
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org c
--- Comment #16 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 14:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=19795)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19795&action=view)
Latest and updatest.
Updated:
- enable for mingw targets
- open files in binary mode in is_elf_or_coff
- bunch o
--- Comment #15 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 12:02 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> There is a portability issue in is_elf_or_coff: fopen should be called with
> "rb" instead of "r". Otherwise, fread fails when a COFF file has 26 sections,
> because it is interpreted as a
--- Comment #14 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-02-03
10:15 ---
There is a portability issue in is_elf_or_coff: fopen should be called with
"rb" instead of "r". Otherwise, fread fails when a COFF file has 26 sections,
because it is interpreted as a text, and 26 means "e
--- Comment #13 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 10:46 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> The patch works for mingw. So you can enable lto for it, too.
>
Thanks for that, I'll update the patch in the next day or three to include
MinGW. (I'll also clean it up a bit and add mor
--- Comment #12 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-01-22
01:17 ---
The patch works for mingw. So you can enable lto for it, too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #11 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-21 19:46 ---
Today's take 2 produces a ton of decompression stream errors. It turns out(*)
that the original approach probably is the correct one after all, and that
p2align will probably not do what we need here, so I've reinsta
--- Comment #10 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-21 07:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=19673)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19673&action=view)
Minor fix of previous attachment.
(In reply to comment #9)
> This is the resulting version that I'm bootstrappi
--- Comment #9 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-21 07:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=19672)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19672&action=view)
work in progress, revised to use unmodified binutils
D'oh. Turns out p2align will do exactly what I want to the
--- Comment #8 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 16:35 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Should we perhaps rename all the lto_elf_ stuff to something else, if all of
> this also Just Works with COFF?
As I said, WIP; I was certainly thinking of renaming it all to
lto_objfile_xx
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 16:18 ---
Should we perhaps rename all the lto_elf_ stuff to something else, if all of
this also Just Works with COFF?
Can we use a similar approach for Mach-O?
Big kudos for Dave, btw, for working on this.
--
steven at g
--- Comment #6 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 12:54 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > did you run autoconf?
>
> Forgot to run it, to my disgrace. :) Sorry, false alarm.
>
No need to apologise, thanks for testing on linux for me!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Comment #5 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-01-18
11:51 ---
> did you run autoconf?
Forgot to run it, to my disgrace. :) Sorry, false alarm.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
--- Comment #4 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 11:05 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
>
> > work in progress patch
>
> This seems to cause "*** No rule to make target `lto/@lto_binary_rea...@.o',
> needed by `lto1'." error when build = host = target
--- Comment #3 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2010-01-18
11:02 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> work in progress patch
This seems to cause "*** No rule to make target `lto/@lto_binary_rea...@.o',
needed by `lto1'." error when build = host = target = i686-pc-linux-gnu
--
--- Comment #2 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-17 16:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=19637)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19637&action=view)
binutils support
This is needed to extend the .section directive in the pe-coff port of gas so
that we can tell i
--- Comment #1 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-17 16:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=19636)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19636&action=view)
work in progress patch
should be good for mingw as well.
needs some binutils support - will attach that here too
50 matches
Mail list logo
