Re: [RFC] lto partitioning of varpool_nodes for section anchors

2016-07-06 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 6 July 2016 at 22:25, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> On 4 July 2016 at 13:51, Andrew Pinski wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >>> wrote: Hi, I have attached a "quick and dirty" prototype patch (va

Re: [RFC] lto partitioning of varpool_nodes for section anchors

2016-07-06 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 4 July 2016 at 13:51, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I have attached a "quick and dirty" prototype patch (var-partition-1.diff), >>> that attempts to partition vari

Re: [RFC] lto partitioning of varpool_nodes for section anchors

2016-07-06 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On 4 July 2016 at 13:51, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> Hi, >> I have attached a "quick and dirty" prototype patch (var-partition-1.diff), >> that attempts to partition variables to reduce number of >> external references and to increase us

Re: [RFC] lto partitioning of varpool_nodes for section anchors

2016-07-04 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > Hi, > I have attached a "quick and dirty" prototype patch (var-partition-1.diff), > that attempts to partition variables to reduce number of > external references and to increase usage of section-anchors > to CSE address computation of

[RFC] lto partitioning of varpool_nodes for section anchors

2016-07-04 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
Hi, I have attached a "quick and dirty" prototype patch (var-partition-1.diff), that attempts to partition variables to reduce number of external references and to increase usage of section-anchors to CSE address computation of global variables. We could put a variable in a partition that has max