[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

2024-09-03 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 --- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7) > We treat first partition somewhat specially in other code too, so I > guess we could a test if the streamed partition is first one instad of > relying on free to h

[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

2024-09-03 Thread tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

2024-09-03 Thread hubicka at ucw dot cz via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- > void > output_offload_tables (void) > { > ... > > /* In WHOPR mode during the WPA stage the joint offload tables need to be > streamed to one partition only. That's why we free offload_funcs and

[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

2024-09-03 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fcccf21a34f92ea060b492c9b2aecb56cd5d167 commit r15-3413-g2fcccf21a34f92ea060b492c9b2aecb56cd5d167 Author: Tobias Burnus Date: T

[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

2024-09-02 Thread rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 2 Sep 2024, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 > > --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #

[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

2024-09-02 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > The forked processes may not write to any "global" data because forking > makes that data not global ... instead any such "global" data has to be > computed bef

[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

2024-09-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- The forked processes may not write to any "global" data because forking makes that data not global ... instead any such "global" data has to be computed before forking.

[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

2024-08-30 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus --- Namely, the following seems to be problematic if the code is run concurrently. The FORK part is actually quite old r207515 (Feb 2014) as is the following code with flag_wpa, which was added in r217489 (No

[Bug lto/116535] LTO partitioning vs. offloading compilation

2024-08-30 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116535 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus --- I have problems reproducing it fully reliably – and my impression is that a global variable is not atomically set. The difference between -flto=1 and -flto=2 with -flto-partition=max is rather small. In eit