| Message ID | 4EB6E81A.1040409@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 15:03, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote: > As per your comment in the PR... > > OK for branch? "LTO support is currently not supported with transactional memory" 'support' mentioned one too many times. Maybe 'LTO is currently not supported with transactional memory'? Diego.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote: > As per your comment in the PR... > > OK for branch? Why not just fix the issue instead of erroring out? No other option has issues with LTO other than TM. In fact I think this should have been a merge blocker really. Thanks, Andrew Pinsi
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 18:56, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote: > Why not just fix the issue instead of erroring out? No other option > has issues with LTO other than TM. In fact I think this should have > been a merge blocker really. I disagree. TM is a new experimental feature. It is fine if it is not supported with all optimization options. There are other features not supported with LTO after all (optimization option nodes, omp clauses, etc). In the context of TM, support of LTO and FDO will certainly be an important optimization vector for future work, so I don't expect it to be unsupported for long. Diego.
Index: opts.c =================================================================== --- opts.c (revision 181028) +++ opts.c (working copy) @@ -784,6 +784,8 @@ finish_options (struct gcc_options *opts #endif if (!opts->x_flag_fat_lto_objects && !HAVE_LTO_PLUGIN) error_at (loc, "-fno-fat-lto-objects are supported only with linker plugin."); + if (opts->x_flag_tm) + error_at (loc, "LTO support is currently not supported with transactional memory"); } if ((opts->x_flag_lto_partition_balanced != 0) + (opts->x_flag_lto_partition_1to1 != 0) + (opts->x_flag_lto_partition_none != 0) >= 1)