> On 24 Apr 2025, at 14:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:39:59PM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>>> The third case looks undesirable, -fno-ipa-reorder-for-locality is the
>>> default and shouldn't affect anything, whether explicit or implicit.
>>
>> I see. With this patch
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:39:59PM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> > The third case looks undesirable, -fno-ipa-reorder-for-locality is the
> > default and shouldn't affect anything, whether explicit or implicit.
>
> I see. With this patch I don’t get a complaint on
> -flto-partition=balanced -fno
> On 24 Apr 2025, at 14:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:05:06PM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2025, at 12:09, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:54:09AM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>>> I'd have expected instead of the LTO_PA
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:05:06PM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> >>> On 24 Apr 2025, at 12:09, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:54:09AM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> > I'd have expected instead of the LTO_PARTITION_DEFAULT checks one
> > should be
> > tes
> On 24 Apr 2025, at 12:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:15:08AM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 24 Apr 2025, at 12:09, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:54:09AM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> I'd have expected instead of the LTO_PA
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:54:09AM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> > I'd have expected instead of the LTO_PARTITION_DEFAULT checks one should be
> > testing !opts_set->x_flag_lto_partition (i.e. -flto-partition=balanced
> > should be the default, but when not specified explicitly, it would really
>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:15:08AM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>
>
> > On 24 Apr 2025, at 12:09, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:54:09AM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> >>> I'd have expected instead of the LTO_PARTITION_DEFAULT checks one should
> >>> be
> >>> testing !
> On 24 Apr 2025, at 12:09, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:54:09AM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
>>> I'd have expected instead of the LTO_PARTITION_DEFAULT checks one should be
>>> testing !opts_set->x_flag_lto_partition (i.e. -flto-partition=balanced
>>> should be the defau
> On 24 Apr 2025, at 11:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 11:27:36AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> This is a thinko in the logic for handling the default -flto-partition=
>>> arguments. We should override it to balanced only if it stayed as default
>>> up to that point. We
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 11:27:36AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > This is a thinko in the logic for handling the default -flto-partition=
> > arguments. We should override it to balanced only if it stayed as default
> > up to that point. We should also be testing opts instead of opts_set here.
> >
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:10:37AM +, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> [resending to the list, I think there might have been an error with the
> previous message]
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a thinko in the logic for handling the default -flto-partition=
> arguments. We should override it to balanced onl
[resending to the list, I think there might have been an error with the
previous message]
Hi all,
This is a thinko in the logic for handling the default -flto-partition=
arguments. We should override it to balanced only if it stayed as default
up to that point. We should also be testing opts ins
12 matches
Mail list logo
