On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 07:48:06AM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Regarding CONFIG_* options, I would expect most of the configuration
> changes to be equally valid for both GCC's and Clang's LTO support.
> Sami, I don't think it's fair to ask you to support both Clang and GCC in
> your patchset, b
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:02:22PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> There's also older patches to enable single-pass-linking for kallsyms,
> which is extremly useful for LTO build performance.
Excellent, can you point me to the patch in question?
I worked around the build performance problem by reusing
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:25:55PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> The patch below uses trick with undefining mrs_s/msr_s immediately
> after use to solve the problem. It works for both gcc and clang.
Great, looks good to me! I tested the patch with LTO and clang's integrated
assembler seems to be happ
> On Nov 9, 2017, at 3:02 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> There's the series from Andi Kleen that enables LTO for Linux on x86:
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/512548/
>> https://github.com/andikleen/linux-misc/tree/lto-411-1
>>
>> It has solved many problems you also try to solve, and some patches
>> ar
> There's the series from Andi Kleen that enables LTO for Linux on x86:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/512548/
> https://github.com/andikleen/linux-misc/tree/lto-411-1
>
> It has solved many problems you also try to solve, and some patches
> are looking very similar.
>
> At now we have different pat
Hi Sami,
(CC Andi Kleen, Alex Matveev, Maxim Kuvyrkov)
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 10:12:01AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Clang's integrated assembler does not allow assembly macros defined
> in one inline asm block using the .macro directive to be used across
> separate asm blocks. LLVM developers
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 10:12:01AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Clang's integrated assembler does not allow assembly macros defined
> in one inline asm block using the .macro directive to be used across
> separate asm blocks. LLVM developers consider this a feature and not a
> bug, recommending co
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 10:53:08AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> These mrs_s and msr_s macros in particular were preventing us from
>> linking arm64 with Clang's integrated assembler, regardless of LTO.
>> Those macros ran into: https://bu
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 10:53:08AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> These mrs_s and msr_s macros in particular were preventing us from
> linking arm64 with Clang's integrated assembler, regardless of LTO.
> Those macros ran into: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19749.
> So while I appreciate
These mrs_s and msr_s macros in particular were preventing us from
linking arm64 with Clang's integrated assembler, regardless of LTO.
Those macros ran into: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19749.
So while I appreciate how clever they are, they prevent us from
assembling with Clang so I would
Clang's integrated assembler does not allow assembly macros defined
in one inline asm block using the .macro directive to be used across
separate asm blocks. LLVM developers consider this a feature and not a
bug, recommending code refactoring:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19749
As binu
11 matches
Mail list logo
