> On Oct 7, 2022, at 10:43 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
Probably not hard, and the IPA pass adjusting visbility could as well
mark the functions
as not to be inlined with -flive-patching=inline-only-static.
>>
>> OTOH inline-only-static could disable WPA inlining and
> >> Probably not hard, and the IPA pass adjusting visbility could as well
> >> mark the functions
> >> as not to be inlined with -flive-patching=inline-only-static.
> >>
>
> OTOH inline-only-static could disable WPA inlining and do all inlining
> early ...
> >>>
> >>>
> On Oct 7, 2022, at 9:03 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>>> WPA is Whole Program Analysis?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Okay, then It will promote all static function to extern functions. That’s
>>> reasonable.
>>
>> No, all extern functions to static functions.
>>
>>> Is it hard to preserve the
On 10/7/22 15:04, Qing Zhao wrote:
On Oct 7, 2022, at 2:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:18 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
On Oct 6, 2022, at 4:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:18 PM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On Oct 5, 2022, at 1:36 PM,
> On Oct 7, 2022, at 2:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:18 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 2022, at 4:29 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:18 PM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
>>> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2022,
> > WPA is Whole Program Analysis?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Okay, then It will promote all static function to extern functions. That’s
> > reasonable.
>
> No, all extern functions to static functions.
>
> > Is it hard to preserve the original “static” visibility in the IR?
>
> Probably not hard, and
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:18 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 2022, at 4:29 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:18 PM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 5, 2022, at 1:36 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 10/5/22 16:50, Qing
> On Oct 6, 2022, at 4:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:18 PM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2022, at 1:36 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/5/22 16:50, Qing Zhao wrote:
I have two questions on this:
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
On 10/6/22 10:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:18 PM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2022, at 1:36 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/5/22 16:50, Qing Zhao wrote:
I have two questions on this:
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
1. What’s the
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:18 PM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 2022, at 1:36 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > On 10/5/22 16:50, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >> I have two questions on this:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> >>
> >> 1. What’s the motivation to enable -flive-patching with -flto? Is
> On Oct 5, 2022, at 1:36 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/5/22 16:50, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> I have two questions on this:
>
> Hello.
>
>>
>> 1. What’s the motivation to enable -flive-patching with -flto? Is there any
>> application that will try -flive-patching with -flto now?
>
> We're
On 10/5/22 16:50, Qing Zhao wrote:
> I have two questions on this:
Hello.
>
> 1. What’s the motivation to enable -flive-patching with -flto? Is there any
> application that will try -flive-patching with -flto now?
We're planning supporting GCC LTO Linux kernel support, so that's one
Hi, Martin:
I have two questions on this:
1. What’s the motivation to enable -flive-patching with -flto? Is there any
application that will try -flive-patching with -flto now?
2. Why only enable -flive-patching=inline-clone with -flto?
thanks.
Qing
> On Oct 5, 2022, at 7:41 AM, Martin
There's no fundamental reason why -flive-patching=inline-clone can't
coexist with -flto. Yes, one can theoretically have many more clone
function that includes a live patch. It is pretty much the same
as in-module inlining.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
14 matches
Mail list logo
