This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [GOOGLE] Refactor the LIPO fixup
- From: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>
- To: Dehao Chen <dehao at google dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Rong Xu <xur at google dot com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:14:28 -0700
- Subject: Re: [GOOGLE] Refactor the LIPO fixup
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAO2gOZXE+jF23DvJWw3+_UkYgZZ=OZWebA9VhR8u_Sp8dF+bJw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAkRFZLpUdaBCRS3K7PS2bxjLn+8hf9R8J0cgxmQhHX9eizvew at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAO2gOZUEG=Zo0znpWoKRXhGJf4F-E_YmvoHTuRk1wS7+WqK-NA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAkRFZ+Xyg9WOdKjShEEgummWnZNBs_tXff8-N2z-a3rhrWOVQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAO2gOZV1rzPHHBoL8FoyMsdTc7AuaZjMnzPpXr5xAshNL6EnXw at mail dot gmail dot com>
ok.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> is cgraph_init_gid_map called after linking?
>
> Oh, forgot that part. It's interesting that the test can pass without
> another cgraph_init_gid_map call.
>
> Patch updated. Retested and the performance is OK.
>
> Dehao
>
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> wrote:
>>> Patch updated, passed performance tests.
>>>
>>> Dehao
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>> Add comment to the new function. init_node_map is better invoked after
>>>> the link step to avoid creating entries with for dead nodes.
>>>>
>>>> Ok if large perf testing is fine.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> This patch refactors LIPO fixup related code to move it into a
>>>>> standalone function. This makes sure that
>>>>> symtab_remove_unreachable_nodes is called right after the fixup so
>>>>> that there is not dangling cgraph nodes any time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bootstrapped and regression test on-going.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK for google-4_8?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Dehao