On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 03:35:45PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> Hi, >> this patch reorganize lto-symtab to work across symtab's symbol table instead >> of building its own. This simplifies things a bit and with the previous >> changes it is rather straighforward - i.e. replace all uses of >> lto_symtab_entry_t by symtab_node. >> >> There are few differences in between the symtab as built by lto-symtab and >> our symbol table. In one direction the declarations that are not going to be >> output to final assembly (i.e. are used by debug info and such) are not in >> symbol table and consequentely they no longer get merged. I think this is >> fine. >> >> Other difference is that symbol table contains some symbols that are not >> really >> symbols in classical definition - such as inline clones or functions held in >> table only for purposes of materialization. I added symtab_real_symbol_p >> predicate for this. It would make more sense to exclude those from the >> assembler name hash and drop checks I added to lto-symtab.c. I plan to work >> on >> this incrementally - it is not completely trivial. The symbol can become >> non-real in several ways and it will need bit of work to get this consistent. >> >> Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, tested by building Mozilla, Qt and other >> stuff with LTO. OK? >> >> Honza >> >> * symtab.c (insert_to_assembler_name_hash): Do not insert >> register vars. >> (unlink_from_assembler_name_hash): NULL out pointers of unlinked >> var. >> (symtab_prevail_in_asm_name_hash): New. >> (symtab_initialize_asm_name_hash): Break out from ... >> (symtab_node_for_asm): ... here. >> (dump_symtab_base): Dump LTO file data. >> (verify_symtab_base): Register vars are not in symtab. >> * cgraph.h (symtab_initialize_asm_name_hash, >> symtab_prevail_in_asm_name_hash): New functions. >> (symtab_real_symbol_p): New inline. >> * lto-symtab.c: Do not include gt-lto-symtab.h. >> (lto_symtab_entry_def): Remove. >> (lto_symtab_entry_t): Remove. >> (lto_symtab_identifiers): Remove. >> (lto_symtab_free): Remove. >> (lto_symtab_entry_hash): Remove. >> (lto_symtab_entry_eq): Remove. >> (lto_symtab_entry_marked_p): Remove. >> (lto_symtab_maybe_init_hash_table): Remove. >> (resolution_guessed_p, set_resolution_guessed): New functions. >> (lto_symtab_register_decl): Only set resolution info. >> (lto_symtab_get, lto_symtab_get_resolution): Remove. >> (lto_symtab_merge): Reorg to work across symtab; do nothing if decls >> are same. >> (lto_symtab_resolve_replaceable_p): Reorg to work on symtab. >> (lto_symtab_resolve_can_prevail_p): Likewise; only real symbols can >> prevail. >> (lto_symtab_resolve_symbols): Reorg to work on symtab. >> (lto_symtab_merge_decls_2): Likewise. >> (lto_symtab_merge_decls_1): Likewise; add debug dumps. >> (lto_symtab_merge_decls): Likewise; do not merge at ltrans stage. >> (lto_symtab_merge_cgraph_nodes_1): Reorg to work on symtab. >> (lto_symtab_merge_cgraph_nodes): Likewise; do not merge at ltrans >> stage. >> (lto_symtab_prevailing_decl): Rewrite to lookup into symtab. >> * lto-streaer.h (lto_symtab_free): Remove. >> * lto-cgraph.c (add_references): Cleanup. >> * varpool.c (varpool_assemble_decl): Skip hard regs. >> >> * lto.c (lto_materialize_function): Update confused comment. >> (read_cgraph_and_symbols): Do not free symtab. > > Unfortunately, this patch breaks SPEC2006 povray LTO build for me. > I'm getting: > > In file included from :168:0: > lighting.cpp: In function 'InitMallocPools': > lighting.cpp:5971:13: error: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set > static void InitMallocPools(void) > ^ > PHI argument > &Frame.Number_Of_Light_Sources; > for PHI node > _191 = PHI <&Frame.Number_Of_Light_Sources(100), &D.7040(101)> > lighting.cpp:5971:13: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed > > I'm currently a bit too busy to try to reduce this, I hope you'll be > able to reproduce the issue yourself easily though. If not, ping me > on IRC. > > Thanks, >
Many of SPEC CPU 2K/2006 benchmarks failed with LTO: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2012-09/msg00419.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2012-09/msg00392.html -- H.J.
