2010/4/29 Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz>: >> > On 4/28/10 10:26 , Manuel López-Ibá?ez wrote: >> > >>>> Not yet, I mistakenly thought -fwhole-program is the same as -fwhopr >> > >>>> and it is just for solving scaling issue of large program.(These two >> > >>>> options do look similar :-). I shall try next. >> > >>> >> > >>> Yep, -fwhopr is not ideal name, but I guess there is not much >> > >>> to do about it. >> > > >> > > It is marked as experimental, so if it is going to stay for GCC 4.6, >> > > then we should change the name. I think one possibility discussed >> > > somewhere is that LTO scales back automatically, so the option would >> > > be not necessary. >> > >> > Yes. I think we should just keep -flto and make it use split >> > compilation if needed. -fwhopr is only needed to explicitly enable it. >> > My suggestion is to just keep -flto and invoke whopr with -flto=split >> > or -flto=big (until the automatic threshold is added). >> >> Yep, I like this idea too. I hope to be able to drop "experimental" status >> from mainline whopr soonish (basically I need to implement references and >> then >> I will burn a lot of time fixing how clones are streamed to enable ipa-cp). > > And do something about paralelizing the whopr build. I guess it means storing > ltrans partition list into file and making collect2 to execute compilation > and re-invent the Makefile code? > It would be great if someone took look at this, I am not at all familiar with > that > code and in a way I would preffer it to stay that way ;))
I will look at moving the LTRANS driving to the driver, it should be easy to do parallel execs from it and hopefully make debugging WPA/LTRANS less of a headache. Richard. > Honza >
