<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:SimSun;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="ZH-CN" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hi David,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">`-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Wl,-gc-sections ` is actually our first choice but because `-ffunction-sections` puts each function into its own section and section alignment cost is not negligible for our target,
the gain is unpredictable and we deprecated the plan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Mindong<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 27, 2019 11:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> chenmindong <chenmindong1@huawei.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org; Yuchao (Michael) <michael.yuchao@huawei.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [llvm-dev] ThinLTO Problem<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 6:29 AM chenmindong via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hi,<br>
<br>
I'm working on enabling thinLTO for our custom backend on LLVM-8 with lld to get code size benefits from dead symbol elimination.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br>
If you only want this - is -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Wl,-gc-sections sufficient?<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The code in LTO::run() of LTO.cpp confuses me that, even though thinLTO is specified, runRegularLTO() will be run first and its return value determines whether runThinLTO() will be executed.
<br>
<br>
My question is if it's clearly known that thinLTO is used, is it still necessary to execute runRegularLTO()?If it is, what's the reason behind? For now our custom backend, where distributed thinLTO is adopted, it works fine as I removed the line executing runRegularLTO().
But if I preserve it, the code fails the `if (Conf.PostInternalizeModuleHook &&!Conf.PostInternalizeModuleHook(0, *RegularLTO.CombinedModule))`, which I also don't understand, and fall through to backend() and abort there. I believe something is missed during
adding the target support but cannot figure it out. Could anyone help?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Mindong Chen<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>