This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LTO question
> > On 4/28/10 10:26 , Manuel López-Ibá?ez wrote:
> > >>>> Not yet, I mistakenly thought -fwhole-program is the same as -fwhopr
> > >>>> and it is just for solving scaling issue of large program.(These two
> > >>>> options do look similar :-). I shall try next.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yep, -fwhopr is not ideal name, but I guess there is not much
> > >>> to do about it.
> > >
> > > It is marked as experimental, so if it is going to stay for GCC 4.6,
> > > then we should change the name. I think one possibility discussed
> > > somewhere is that LTO scales back automatically, so the option would
> > > be not necessary.
> >
> > Yes. I think we should just keep -flto and make it use split
> > compilation if needed. -fwhopr is only needed to explicitly enable it.
> > My suggestion is to just keep -flto and invoke whopr with -flto=split
> > or -flto=big (until the automatic threshold is added).
>
> Yep, I like this idea too. I hope to be able to drop "experimental" status
> from mainline whopr soonish (basically I need to implement references and then
> I will burn a lot of time fixing how clones are streamed to enable ipa-cp).
And do something about paralelizing the whopr build. I guess it means storing
ltrans partition list into file and making collect2 to execute compilation
and re-invent the Makefile code?
It would be great if someone took look at this, I am not at all familiar with that
code and in a way I would preffer it to stay that way ;))
Honza