This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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 ;))


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]