Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Rafael Espindola wrote: Is it IO bound because the LTO files are abnormally large? What kinds of file sizes are you seeing? With the streamer debug enable we had over 40x the normal object size. Without it, it looks to be 4 or 5 times if I remember correctly.

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> Is it IO bound because the LTO files are abnormally large? What kinds of > file sizes are you seeing? With the streamer debug enable we had over 40x the normal object size. Without it, it looks to be 4 or 5 times if I remember correctly. > -Chris Cheers, -- Rafael Avila de Espindola Google

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> The LTO branch is starting to get some semblance of stability, though >> is by no means in any kind of mergeable state. I have updated the >> wiki page to reflect the current status (Simon,

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> My testing indicates otherwise, apart from the lack of support for some > newer Solaris features. I presume it's again the combination Sun as + GNU ld? -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Joe Buck writes: > > Ok, I see. Maybe we can extend Sun ld to handle that, given that the > > sources are now open via OpenSolaris. > > Or just use GNU ld on Solaris, it works. My testing indicates otherwise, apart from the lack of support for some newer Solaris features. Rainer

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:18:13AM -0800, Rainer Orth wrote: > But at least on Solaris, using GNU ld is sort of a problem: there are lots > of GCC testsuite regressions right now, and GNU ld doesn't support several > of Sun ld's advanced features, which is why I very much prefer to use the > native

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:11:51AM -0800, Rainer Orth wrote: > Rafael Espindola writes: > > > > I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Solaris and IRIX *are* ELF targets > > > (just not Linux, so using the system linker, not GNU ld). If I understand > > > you correctly, they might just work (modul

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Joseph S. Myers writes: > > Unfortunately, gold doesn't even build on non-Linux targets: see PR > > gold/7024. > > That actually appears to be a list of issues with non-Linux hosts, not > non-Linux targets. Right, I had ignored non-native builds since I rarely do them. > I would certainly hope

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:18, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > I would certainly hope both LTO and gold should work on a wide range of > non-Linux hosts (if anyone cares to contribute patches for such support), > including non-ELF hosts, even though restricted to ELF targets at least in > the case of go

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Diego Novillo writes: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:18, Rainer Orth > wrote: > > > But at least on Solaris, using GNU ld is sort of a problem: there are lots > > of GCC testsuite regressions right now, and GNU ld doesn't support several > > of Sun ld's advanced features, which is why I very much

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:18, Rainer Orth wrote: > But at least on Solaris, using GNU ld is sort of a problem: there are lots > of GCC testsuite regressions right now, and GNU ld doesn't support several > of Sun ld's advanced features, which is why I very much prefer to use the > native linker

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Rainer Orth wrote: > Rafael Espindola writes: > > > > I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Solaris and IRIX *are* ELF targets > > > (just not Linux, so using the system linker, not GNU ld). If I understand > > > you correctly, they might just work (modulo bugs)? > > > > Th

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Diego Novillo writes: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:11, Rainer Orth > wrote: > > > Unfortunately, gold doesn't even build on non-Linux targets: see PR > > gold/7024. > > Note that you don't really need gold to use LTO. It works just fine > with GNU ld. But at least on Solaris, using GNU ld is

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:11, Rainer Orth wrote: > Unfortunately, gold doesn't even build on non-Linux targets: see PR > gold/7024. Note that you don't really need gold to use LTO. It works just fine with GNU ld. What you get with gold and the linker plugin is mostly the ability to open up .a

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Rafael Espindola writes: > > I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Solaris and IRIX *are* ELF targets > > (just not Linux, so using the system linker, not GNU ld). If I understand > > you correctly, they might just work (modulo bugs)? > > That should work. You still might need to extend the link

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 06:56, Rainer Orth wrote: > Any chance that it works on non-GNU/Linux ELF targets (like Solaris, IRIX)? Yes, it should work on any ELF target. Diego.

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:36, Richard Guenther wrote: > /gcc/spec/sb-haydn-df-64/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:1102: internal > compiler error: Segmentation fault > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > See for instructions. >

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 00:06, Chris Lattner wrote: > Thanks for the summary, it's great to see the progress of the project. Do > you have any compile time numbers for LTO so far? If you pick a mid-sided > program from spec or even a bootstrap, how much slower is LTO than compiling > at -O3? T

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Solaris and IRIX *are* ELF targets > (just not Linux, so using the system linker, not GNU ld). If I understand > you correctly, they might just work (modulo bugs)? That should work. You still might need to extend the linker to support IL in static librarie

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Rafael Espindola writes: > > Any chance that it works on non-GNU/Linux ELF targets (like Solaris, IRIX)? > > We need ELF for storing the IL files. In theory that is only a > container format and you could crate a plugin for the IRIX linker to > read it. I suppose you mis-parsed my question: Sola

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> Any chance that it works on non-GNU/Linux ELF targets (like Solaris, IRIX)? We need ELF for storing the IL files. In theory that is only a container format and you could crate a plugin for the IRIX linker to read it. >Rainer Cheers, -- Rafael Avila de Espindola Google | Gordon House

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

Diego Novillo writes: > Essentially, the biggest areas where we need help are: > > - Testing on other targets. We have only tested on x86 (32 and 64 > bit) targets. I'm pretty sure other targets are either non-functional > or show major breakage. We'd appreciate any daily tester that could >

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:58, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> LTO failed to bootstrap on RHEL5/ia32 and RHEL5/ia64: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38992 > > Thanks. This was known to us, though we had not filed a request. > Essenti

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

> Hi Diego, > > Thanks for the summary, it's great to see the progress of the project. Do > you have any compile time numbers for LTO so far? If you pick a mid-sided > program from spec or even a bootstrap, how much slower is LTO than compiling > at -O3? We haven't tried a bootstrap with LTO ena

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Jan 27, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: The LTO branch is starting to get some semblance of stability, though is by no means in any kind of mergeable state. I have updated the wiki page to reflect the current status (Simon, Rafael, Doug, Cary, please make sure I haven't missed anythi

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 17:05, H.J. Lu wrote: > What can I help to implement the fix? Thanks. I just updated bug 38992 with the IRC thread where we discussed a possible fix. I don't think it would be too complicated. Diego.

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:58, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> LTO failed to bootstrap on RHEL5/ia32 and RHEL5/ia64: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38992 > > Thanks. This was known to us, though we had not filed a request. > Essentia

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:58, H.J. Lu wrote: > LTO failed to bootstrap on RHEL5/ia32 and RHEL5/ia64: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38992 Thanks. This was known to us, though we had not filed a request. Essentially, Red Hat distros use a different libelf than the one we have b

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > The LTO branch is starting to get some semblance of stability, though > is by no means in any kind of mergeable state. I have updated the > wiki page to reflect the current status (Simon, Rafael, Doug, Cary, > please make sure I haven't miss

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:24, H.J. Lu wrote: > I can try to run tests on Linux/ia32, Linux/ia64 and Linux/x86-64. Thanks. > Does it require gold? No, It does not require gold. However, if you have gold installed, you can use -use-linker-plugin to use the linker plugin to communicate between

Re: Request for testing/help for the LTO branch

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > The LTO branch is starting to get some semblance of stability, though > is by no means in any kind of mergeable state. I have updated the > wiki page to reflect the current status (Simon, Rafael, Doug, Cary, > please make sure I haven't miss