This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH]Come up with -flive-patching master option.
> On Nov 16, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/18 2:36 AM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this is the new version of the patch.
>>>
>>> I have bootstrapped it on both aarch64 and x86, no regression.
>>>
>>> please take a look.
>>
>> Thanks for the updated version of the patch.
>> I have last small nits I see:
>>
>> - gcc/common.opt: when running --help=common, the line is too long
>> - gcc/doc/invoke.texi - 2 spaces in between sentences + better gol
>> - gcc/opts.c - do not mix spaces + tabs
>>
>> With that I'm fine. But note that I'm not a maintainer :)
>
> I wonder what happens, when I pass like -flive-patching -fwhole-program
> compared to -fwhole-program -flive-patching.
> It seems to me that in first case we will end up with whole-program
> optimization while in the second we won't.
>
> I guess we should behave in a way that we disable the passes when
> they are enabled implicitly (such as by -O2) but output an error when
> once uses contradicting set of options, lie -flive-patching
> -fwhole-program?
I have thought of this during the implementation, but finally I decided to provide the user
an opportunity to explicitly enable an ipa optimization if they really want to, even though
the -flive-patching disables that ipa optimization.
But I am Okay to change to the behavior you described in the above, I think it’s reasonable too.
Qing
>
> Honza
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Martin
>>