On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 01:09:19PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 05:58:55PM +0200, Marek Behun wrote: > > On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:40:53 -0400 > > Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:56:41PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 06:00:31PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 21 May 2021 10:11:47 -0400 > > > > > Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:56:29PM -0500, Adam Ford wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:25 AM Marek Behún <marek.be...@nic.cz> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enable LTO for some boards that were tested by people on U-Boot > > > > > > > > Mailing List. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Behún <marek.be...@nic.cz> > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Adam Ford <aford...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Pali Rohár <p...@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Tim Harvey <thar...@gateworks.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the imx8mm beacon boards and the imx8mm venice board both > > > > > > > show > > > > > > > promise, does it make sense to 'imply' the LTO for anything > > > > > > > enabling > > > > > > > imx8mm? > > > > > > > Same thing for the various omap3 boards, and potentially the > > > > > > > renesas > > > > > > > RZ/G2 boards. I know Tom went through to remove a bunch of boards > > > > > > > that were never converted to DM. Most of the boards remaining > > > > > > > boards have minimal board files and most of code is common to > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > boards in the same platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have an l138_lcdk that I can use to test which I expect to be > > > > > > > similar to the da850evm. > > > > > > > > > > > > As much as I am eager to move everything, quickly, over to LTO by > > > > > > default, I think the problems that we've seen thus far show it's > > > > > > best > > > > > > to really make it an explicit enable per board at least for the > > > > > > first > > > > > > release or two. Once we've hopefully gotten more boards tested and > > > > > > enabled we can see what makes sense for defaults, give a release > > > > > > worth > > > > > > of heads up, and then go. > > > > > > > > > > Tom, are there some other issues aside from the one failing CI > > > > > scenario > > > > > (sandbox_clang)? Would you be willing to merge this if I resolved that > > > > > one fail by disabling LTO for that scenario (until I resolve it)? It > > > > > would help me not having to maintain all 30+ patches... > > > > > > > > Yeah, CI needs to keep passing, so if we need to disable > > > > sandbox+clang+lto for now, OK. > > > > > > Ah, I see the problem now. I've worked out a fix after looking at the > > > Linux kernel a bit and I'll post something for us and upstream dtc as > > > well. > > > > > > > What do you mean? The problem is in dtc? I see 2 problems: > > - one with DM test > > - one with stack protector test > > I don't have a full answer about the stack protector test just yet, but > it almost seems like it's too simple and maybe something is happening > with it being optimized to not a problem?
Yeah, so clang with LTO optimizes away that memset call, and so the test passes. I'll do something to make sure the array is used so it won't be optimized away. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
