[llvm-dev] RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier

[NAKAMURA Takumi via llvm-dev]

Random thoughts.

- Could we implement lightweight verifier?
- Verifier can run in parallel in some cases.
- Any mechanism for credit emitted by same version of LLVM bitwriter, like
signature.

I think we should be formal in user inputs, too.

2015年8月30日(日) 9:59 David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:

> For cc1 we disable it for IR generated immediately by clang. We don't
> disable it for IR or bitcode inouts provided by the user.
>
> So I'd be a bit hesitant to disable it for lto because it is an
> unrestricted input at lto time.
>
> (But this is hardly my wheelhouse. So grain of salt and all)
> On Aug 29, 2015 3:04 PM, "Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev" <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> The verifier takes ~5% of link time when using LTO.  I think we
>> should add a `-disable-llvm-verifier` option to the LTO plugins, and
>> change the clang driver to pass the option through in release builds.
>> In asserts builds, the clang driver would not pass the option.
>>
>> This would match the way the driver passes -disable-llvm-verifier to
>> -cc1.
>>
>> Everyone on board?
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150830/c829aea5/attachment.html>