On December 6, 2019 5:46:25 PM GMT+01:00, Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>
>
>On 2019-12-06 5:50 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 6:03 PM Erick Ochoa
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2019-12-04 7:52 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:51 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>>
On 2019-12-06 5:50 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 6:03 PM Erick Ochoa
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2019-12-04 7:52 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:51 PM Erick Ochoa
>>> wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to use the function: `cgraph_node::get_
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 6:03 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2019-12-04 7:52 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:51 PM Erick Ochoa
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am trying to use the function: `cgraph_node::get_untransformed_body`
> >> during
> >> the wpa stage of a S
On 2019-12-04 7:52 a.m., Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:51 PM Erick Ochoa
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am trying to use the function: `cgraph_node::get_untransformed_body` during
>> the wpa stage of a SIMPLE_IPA_PASS transformation. While the execute function
>
> I think SIMPL
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:51 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to use the function: `cgraph_node::get_untransformed_body` during
> the wpa stage of a SIMPLE_IPA_PASS transformation. While the execute function
I think SIMPLE_IPA_PASSes have no "WPA" stage but run at LTRANS time
(WPA tr
CC'ing Honza and Martin.
ogle.com]
>> Sent: 29 April 2010 17:17
>> To: Bingfeng Mei
>> Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: LTO question
>>
>> Just curious, what is the base line size of your comparison? Did you
>> turn on GC (-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections
I turned on -ffunction-sections and compiled with -Os.
The size gain at -O2 is less though.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Xinliang David Li [mailto:davi...@google.com]
> Sent: 29 April 2010 17:17
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>
ze for applications I tested
> and should be very useful for us.
>
> Bingfeng
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 28 April 2010 10:33
>> To: Bingfeng Mei
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject:
> 2010/4/29 Jan Hubicka :
> >> > 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.
2010/4/29 Jan Hubicka :
>> > 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.
>> > >>>
> > 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 i
> 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, b
On 4/28/10 10:26 , Manuel López-Ibáñez 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 t
>> > 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 marke
010 14:59
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: LTO question
>
> On 28/04/2010 10:44, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> > Thanks, I will check what I can do with collect2.
>
> I was also planning to work on this, but won't have any
>
On 28/04/2010 10:44, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Thanks, I will check what I can do with collect2.
I was also planning to work on this, but won't have any objection if you get
there before me! We have an open PR about this, would you care to use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41376
to
I just tried -fwhole-program. It can achieve extra 3%-4% saving.
That is brilliant. Thanks.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Hubicka [mailto:hubi...@ucw.cz]
> Sent: 28 April 2010 13:59
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Subject: Re: LTO question
>
> > Not yet, I mi
eng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: LTO question
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Bingfeng Mei
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I have been playing with LTO. I notice that LTO doesn't work when
> > object files are achived into static library files and the
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> I have been playing with LTO. I notice that LTO doesn't work when
> object files are achived into static library files and the final
> binary is linked against them, although these object files are compiled
> with -flto and I can see
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> I have been playing with LTO. I notice that LTO doesn't work when
> object files are achived into static library files and the final
> binary is linked against them, although these object files are compiled
> with -flto and I can see all the lto related sections in .a fil
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 13 October 2009 16:15
>> To: Bingfeng Mei
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: LTO ques
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 13 October 2009 16:15
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: LTO question
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Bingfeng Mei
> wrote:
> > Hell
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> I just had the first taste with the latest LTO merge on our port.
> Compiler is configured with LTO enabled and built correctly.
> I tried the following example:
>
> a.c
> extern void foo(int);
> int main()
> { foo(20);
> return 1;
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:46, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Thanks. It works. I thought -fwhole-program was used with --combine and they
> are replaced
> by -flto. Now it seems that -flto is equivalent of --combine, and
> -fwhole-program is still
> important.
That's approximately correct, yes. --com
> Sent: 13 October 2009 14:30
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: LTO question
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:47, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>
> > a.c
> > extern void foo(int);
> > int main()
> > { foo(20);
> > return 1;
> > }
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:47, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> a.c
> extern void foo(int);
> int main()
> { foo(20);
> return 1;
> }
>
> b.c
> #include
> void foo(int c)
> {
> printf("Hello world: %d\n", c);
> }
>
> compiled with:
> firepath-elf-gcc -flto a.c b.c -save-temps -O2
>
> I expected that foo
27 matches
Mail list logo
