Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-27 Thread Iain Sandoe
On 22 Nov 2011, at 22:42, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 11/22/11 16:40, Iain Sandoe wrote: On 22 Nov 2011, at 21:43, Richard Henderson wrote: On 11/22/2011 01:37 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: On x86_64-apple-darwin11, this converts the link failures into run-time failures as are seen on i386 linux.

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Aldy Hernandez
On 11/22/11 16:40, Iain Sandoe wrote: On 22 Nov 2011, at 21:43, Richard Henderson wrote: On 11/22/2011 01:37 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: On x86_64-apple-darwin11, this converts the link failures into run-time failures as are seen on i386 linux. These aren't supposed to be runtime tests. Did a

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Iain Sandoe
On 22 Nov 2011, at 21:43, Richard Henderson wrote: On 11/22/2011 01:37 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: On x86_64-apple-darwin11, this converts the link failures into run- time failures as are seen on i386 linux. These aren't supposed to be runtime tests. Did a { dg-do link } marker get missed?

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/22/2011 01:37 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On x86_64-apple-darwin11, this converts the link failures into run-time > failures > as are seen on i386 linux. These aren't supposed to be runtime tests. Did a { dg-do link } marker get missed? r~

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Jack Howarth
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:30:22PM -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > >> It's a consequence of a combination of the way that "weak" works on >> Darwin, and the fact that I tried to make a "one size fits all" crt. >> >>> >>> Can you try this? >>> >> >> we will need a dummy for _ITM_deregisterTMCloneTab

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Aldy Hernandez
It's a consequence of a combination of the way that "weak" works on Darwin, and the fact that I tried to make a "one size fits all" crt. Can you try this? we will need a dummy for _ITM_deregisterTMCloneTable as well. Then try this; similarly for any other symbols Darwin may be generating

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Iain Sandoe
On 22 Nov 2011, at 21:09, Aldy Hernandez wrote: -fgnu-tm -m32 -o gcc-dg-lto-trans-mem-1-01.exe (timeout = 300) Undefined symbols for architecture i386:^M "__ITM_registerTMCloneTable", referenced from:^M ___doTMRegistrations in crttms.o^M ___doTMRegistrations in crttms.o^M "__ITM_deregisterTMC

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Aldy Hernandez
-fgnu-tm -m32 -o gcc-dg-lto-trans-mem-1-01.exe (timeout = 300) Undefined symbols for architecture i386:^M "__ITM_registerTMCloneTable", referenced from:^M ___doTMRegistrations in crttms.o^M ___doTMRegistrations in crttms.o^M "__ITM_deregisterTMCloneTable", referenced from:^M ___doTMdeRegistratio

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Iain Sandoe
On 22 Nov 2011, at 20:57, Jack Howarth wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:30:44AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: On 11/22/2011 09:55 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: * opts.c (finish_options): Do not fail for -fgnu-tm. * gimple-streamer-out.c (output_gimple_stmt): Handle GIMPLE_TRANSACTIO

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Jack Howarth
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:30:44AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 11/22/2011 09:55 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > > * opts.c (finish_options): Do not fail for -fgnu-tm. > > * gimple-streamer-out.c (output_gimple_stmt): Handle GIMPLE_TRANSACTION. > > * gimple-streamer-in.c (input_gimp

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/22/2011 09:55 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > * opts.c (finish_options): Do not fail for -fgnu-tm. > * gimple-streamer-out.c (output_gimple_stmt): Handle GIMPLE_TRANSACTION. > * gimple-streamer-in.c (input_gimple_stmt): Same. > * lto-cgraph.c (input_overwrite_node): Read t

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-22 Thread Aldy Hernandez
On 11/21/11 13:45, Richard Henderson wrote: On 11/21/2011 11:31 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: case GIMPLE_DEBUG: +case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION: for (i = 0; i< gimple_num_ops (stmt); i++) { tree op = gimple_op (stmt, i); @@ -145,6 +146,8 @@ output_gimple_stmt (struct outpu

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/21/2011 11:31 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > case GIMPLE_DEBUG: > +case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION: >for (i = 0; i < gimple_num_ops (stmt); i++) > { >tree op = gimple_op (stmt, i); > @@ -145,6 +146,8 @@ output_gimple_stmt (struct output_block >else > stream

Re: [patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-21 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/21/2011 11:31 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Tested on x86-64 Linux. The testcase only tests for assembly, since I see no > way of testing linkage and depending on libitm as well. All these tests support multi-file linkage (otherwise LTO is moot). You could supply dummy implementations of the

[patch] support LTO of transactional memory

2011-11-21 Thread Aldy Hernandez
No sense not supporting LTO in the first TM release, if we can avoid it. OK for trunk, or should I queue for 4.8? This only affects the TM code path. Tested on x86-64 Linux. The testcase only tests for assembly, since I see no way of testing linkage and depending on libitm as well. Plus, w