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

[NAKAMURA Takumi via llvm-dev]

SInce Bitcode is well-structured, Verifier might overwork for one.
Could we introduce "Verifier for BitReader" and "Verifier for IRParser" as
input verifier?

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/d602e5dc/attachment.html>