On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>> >> Thanks, will make those changes. Do you recommend a diff
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> >> Thanks, will make those changes. Do you recommend a different name
>> >> for this flag like -fmake-comdat-functions-st
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
> >> Thanks, will make those changes. Do you recommend a different name
> >> for this flag like -fmake-comdat-functions-static?
> >
> > Well, the C++ ABI refers to this as "vague linka
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> Thanks, will make those changes. Do you recommend a different name
>> for this flag like -fmake-comdat-functions-static?
>
> Well, the C++ ABI refers to this as "vague linkage." It may be a bit
> too long or too ABI-specific, but maybe somet
> Thanks, will make those changes. Do you recommend a different name
> for this flag like -fmake-comdat-functions-static?
Well, the C++ ABI refers to this as "vague linkage." It may be a bit
too long or too ABI-specific, but maybe something like
-f[no-]use-vague-linkage-for-functions or
-f[no-]fu
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
> Based on Richard's suggestion, I have a patch to localize comdat
> functions which seems like a very effective solution to this problem.
> The text size increase is limited to the extra comdat copies generated
> for the special
> +@item -fno-weak-comdat-functions
> +@opindex fno-weak-comdat-functions
> +Do not use weak symbol support for comdat non-virtual functions, even if it
> +is provided by the linker. By default, G++ uses weak symbols if they are
> +available. This option is useful when comdat functions generated
Based on Richard's suggestion, I have a patch to localize comdat
functions which seems like a very effective solution to this problem.
The text size increase is limited to the extra comdat copies generated
for the specialized modules (modules with unsafe options) which is
u
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
>
> Hm. But which options are unsafe? Also w
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
Hm. But which options are unsafe? Also wouldn't it be better to simply
_not_ have unsafe options pro
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>>
>>> Hm. But which options are unsafe? Also wouldn't it be better to simply
>>> _not_ have unsafe options produce comdats but always make local clones
>>> for them (thus emit t
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>
>> Hm. But which options are unsafe? Also wouldn't it be better to simply
>> _not_ have unsafe options produce comdats but always make local clones
>> for them (thus emit the comdat with "unsafe" flags dropped)?
>
> Always localize com
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> On 05/19/2015 09:16 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>> We have the following problem with selectively compiling modules with
>> -m options and I have provided a solution to solve this. I would
>> like to hear what you think.
>>
>> Multi version
On 05/19/2015 09:16 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
We have the following problem with selectively compiling modules with
-m options and I have provided a solution to solve this. I would
like to hear what you think.
Multi versioning at module granularity is done by compiling a subset
of modules with
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> We have the following problem with selectively compiling modules with
>> -m options and I have provided a solution to solve this. I would
>> like to hear what you think.
>>
>> Mult
>
> Hm. But which options are unsafe? Also wouldn't it be better to simply
> _not_ have unsafe options produce comdats but always make local clones
> for them (thus emit the comdat with "unsafe" flags dropped)?
Always localize comdat functions may lead to text size increase. It
does not work if
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> We have the following problem with selectively compiling modules with
> -m options and I have provided a solution to solve this. I would
> like to hear what you think.
>
> Multi versioning at module granularity is done by compiling a subse
We have the following problem with selectively compiling modules with
-m options and I have provided a solution to solve this. I would
like to hear what you think.
Multi versioning at module granularity is done by compiling a subset
of modules with advanced ISA instructions, supported on later
ge
18 matches
Mail list logo
