lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 13/15] arm64: fix mrs_s/msr_s macros for clang LTO
From
Date
> On Nov 9, 2017, at 3:02 AM, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> There's the series from Andi Kleen that enables LTO for Linux on x86:
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/512548/
>> https://github.com/andikleen/linux-misc/tree/lto-411-1
>>
>> It has solved many problems you also try to solve, and some patches
>> are looking very similar.
>>
>> At now we have different patchsets for gcc and clang, and it would be
>> better to have them together. One thing I'm worried is that you introduce
>> CONFIG_CLANG_LTO and use it for all cases, including that where more
>> generic CONFIG_LTO should be used.
>
> Yes would be good to merge the two. I've been looking at updating
> my old one.
>
> I don't cover any ARM code, but lots of generic code. My patches
> also worked on MIPS at least.
>
> There's also older patches to enable single-pass-linking for kallsyms,
> which is extremly useful for LTO build performance.

[Yury, thanks for the CC:]

Chiming in from the toolchain side, Linaro's Toolchain team will try to help with any GCC or Clang issues that are exposed by building kernel with LTO on arm64 / arm.

Regarding CONFIG_* options, I would expect most of the configuration changes to be equally valid for both GCC's and Clang's LTO support. Sami, I don't think it's fair to ask you to support both Clang and GCC in your patchset, but, where changes are obviously toolchain-agnostic, could you use CONFIG_LTO? And use CONFIG_LTO_CLANG for Clang-specific parts?

This way we will be able to avoid most of the refactoring when adding support for GCC's LTO.

Thank you,

--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
www.linaro.org

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-09 05:49    [W:0.097 / U:0.740 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site