Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-29 Thread Andrew Stubbs
On 28/09/2023 20:59, Toon Moene wrote: On 9/28/23 21:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote: It is worse than that, usually the LTO format changes e.g. any time any option or parameter is added on a release branch (several times a year) and at other times as well. Though, admittedly GCC is the single

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-29 Thread Thomas Koenig via Gcc
Hi Jakub, It is worse than that, usually the LTO format changes e.g. any time any option or parameter is added on a release branch (several times a year) and at other times as well. Hm, that makes LTO not very well suited for libraries... Though, admittedly GCC is the single package that

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread David Edelsohn via Gcc
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 4:00 PM Toon Moene wrote: > On 9/28/23 21:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > It is worse than that, usually the LTO format changes e.g. any time any > > option or parameter is added on a release branch (several times a year) > and > > at other times as well. > > Though,

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread Toon Moene
On 9/28/23 21:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote: It is worse than that, usually the LTO format changes e.g. any time any option or parameter is added on a release branch (several times a year) and at other times as well. Though, admittedly GCC is the single package that actually could get away with LTO

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 09:03:39PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote: > > > The full question of "lto-ing" run time libraries is more > > > complicated than just "whether it works" as those who attended the > > > BoF will recall. > > > > I didn't attend the Cauldron (but that discussion would have been > >

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread Toon Moene
On 9/28/23 07:33, Thomas Koenig wrote: Hi Toon, [ I wrote: ] The full question of "lto-ing" run time libraries is more complicated than just "whether it works" as those who attended the BoF will recall. I didn't attend the Cauldron (but that discussion would have been very interesting). 

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 01:00:41PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > I am not aware of any logigal/integer/real(+comples)/character kind > 16, > except for this PPC one. And complex numbers are pairs of BT_REAL. > > Thus, I think that patch should be fine - except: > > > Does anything error earlier

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread Tobias Burnus
(replace gcc@ by gcc-patches@; see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-September/242591.html and other emails in that thread) On 28.09.23 11:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 09:29:02AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: On 28.09.23 08:25, Richard Biener via Fortran wrote: This

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 09:29:02AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > the following works for me. I have only tried a normal build (where it > does silence the same warning) and not an LTO build and I just believed > the comment - see attached patch. Comments? > > On 28.09.23 08:25, Richard Biener via

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread Tobias Burnus
Hi all, the following works for me. I have only tried a normal build (where it does silence the same warning) and not an LTO build and I just believed the comment - see attached patch. Comments? On 28.09.23 08:25, Richard Biener via Fortran wrote: This particular place in libgfortran has

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread Andrew Pinski via Gcc
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:28 PM Richard Biener via Fortran wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:48 PM Jeff Law via Fortran > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/27/23 12:21, Toon Moene wrote: > > > > > > > > The lto-ing of libgfortran did succeed, because I did get a new warning: > > > > > > gfortran

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-28 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:48 PM Jeff Law via Fortran wrote: > > > > On 9/27/23 12:21, Toon Moene wrote: > > > > > The lto-ing of libgfortran did succeed, because I did get a new warning: > > > > gfortran -O3 -flto -flto-partition=none -static -o xlintstrfz zchkrfp.o > > zdrvrfp.o zdrvrf1.o

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-27 Thread Thomas Koenig via Gcc
Hi Toon, During the GNU Tools Cauldron we discussed (at the BoF: IPA & LTO) the possibility (and hazards) of building the run time libraries for various compilers with -flto, enabling an -flto -static linking of programs with the run time library available during link time optimizations.

Re: Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-27 Thread Jeff Law via Gcc
On 9/27/23 12:21, Toon Moene wrote: The lto-ing of libgfortran did succeed, because I did get a new warning: gfortran -O3 -flto -flto-partition=none -static  -o xlintstrfz zchkrfp.o zdrvrfp.o zdrvrf1.o zdrvrf2.o zdrvrf3.o zdrvrf4.o zerrrfp.o zlatb4.o zlaipd.o zlarhs.o zsbmv.o zget04.o

Test with an lto-build of libgfortran.

2023-09-27 Thread Toon Moene
Hi all, During the GNU Tools Cauldron we discussed (at the BoF: IPA & LTO) the possibility (and hazards) of building the run time libraries for various compilers with -flto, enabling an -flto -static linking of programs with the run time library available during link time optimizations.