[LLVMdev] Postponing more passes in LTO

[Reid Kleckner]

Yes, that seems to be the consensus. -flto during the compile step should
imply things like: no vectorization until after cross-module inlining,
reduced inlining threshold (only inline if it *reduces* code size), and
other things.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Daniel Stewart <stewartd at codeaurora.org>
wrote:

> Looking at the existing flow of passes for LTO, it appears that most all
> passes are run on a per file basis, before the call to the gold linker. I’m
> looking to get people’s feedback on whether there would be an advantage to
> waiting to run a number of these passes until the linking stage. For
> example, I believe I saw a post a little while back about postponing
> vectorization until the linking stage. It seems to me that there could be
> an advantage to postponing (some) passes until the linking stage, where the
> entire graph is available. In general, what do people think about the idea
> of a different flow of LTO where more passes are postponed until the
> linking stage?
>
>
>
> Daniel Stewart
>
>
>
> --
>
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by The Linux Foundation
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140917/737aaeff/attachment.html>