On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:48, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> It would be nice if the lto had some sort of verbose mode which
>> would show you the compiler flags being used for each object file
>> as it was processed (since there does appear to
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:48, Jack Howarth wrote:
> It would be nice if the lto had some sort of verbose mode which
> would show you the compiler flags being used for each object file
> as it was processed (since there does appear to be a crude automatic
> association of compiler flags done in
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:34, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Well, something would be nice, but not magically choosing something,
> only complaining if the result won't work as expected.
Agreed. I don't think there are silver bullets here. I would like to
get to a point where:
1- The IL saved by
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 03:34:26PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jack Howarth
> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 02:50:27PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> For example the C++ frontend sets flag_exceptions to 1 but the
> >> command-line does
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 02:50:27PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>>
>> For example the C++ frontend sets flag_exceptions to 1 but the
>> command-line does not contain -fexceptions. Or the Fortran
>> frontend might set flag_no_signed_z
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 02:50:27PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> For example the C++ frontend sets flag_exceptions to 1 but the
> command-line does not contain -fexceptions. Or the Fortran
> frontend might set flag_no_signed_zeros but the command-line
> does not contain -fno-signed-zero
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 08:39, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
>> Instead of trying to record switches that way we should instead
>> save the final settings of relevant flag_* values somewhere and
>> simply complain on mismatches.
>
> What would
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 08:39, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Instead of trying to record switches that way we should instead
> save the final settings of relevant flag_* values somewhere and
> simply complain on mismatches.
What would be the difference? The flags are reapplied as if they had
been g
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 5/16/10 23:18 , Jack Howarth wrote:
>> What is the current LTO design with regards to the
>> retention of compiler flags during the actual link
>> time optimization compilation steps. For example, if
>
> Some options are embedded, but n
On 5/16/10 23:18 , Jack Howarth wrote:
>What is the current LTO design with regards to the
> retention of compiler flags during the actual link
> time optimization compilation steps. For example, if
Some options are embedded, but not all (see lto-opts.c). You will need
to pass the same flags
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> What is the current LTO design with regards to the
> retention of compiler flags during the actual link
> time optimization compilation steps. For example, if
> one is linking mixed fortran and c object files which
> have distinct flags pass
What is the current LTO design with regards to the
retention of compiler flags during the actual link
time optimization compilation steps. For example, if
one is linking mixed fortran and c object files which
have distinct flags passed in FFLAGS and CFLAGS, are
these embedded with the LTO inform
12 matches
Mail list logo
