| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Hello, and thanks for your contribution! I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept this contribution by verifying everyone involved has signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA). CLA MissingOur records indicate the following people have not signed the CLA: For legal reasons we need all the people listed to sign the CLA before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue. If you have recently signed the CLA, please wait at least one business day You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received. Thanks again for the contribution, we look forward to reviewing it! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR. Without commenting on the desirability of the feature, be aware thatconfigure is a derived file produced from configure.ac by the autoconf tool. The PR needs to change configure.ac and then run autoconf and commit the resulting changes to configure too. See the devguide for more info.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add the NEWS.d with blurb tool
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@holmanb |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Let's run the https://github.com/python/pyperformance benchmark and compare it with full LTO |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| (default is no) | ||
| --with-assertions build with C assertions enabled (default is no) | ||
| --with-lto enable Link-Time-Optimization in any build (default | ||
| --with-lto[=no|thin] enable Link-Time-Optimization in any build (default |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about
--with-lto[=full|thin] enable Link-Time-Optimization in any build (default is full)
Sorry, something went wrong.
| --with-assertions build with C assertions enabled (default is no) | ||
| --with-lto enable Link-Time-Optimization in any build (default | ||
| --with-lto[=no|thin] enable Link-Time-Optimization in any build (default | ||
| is no) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the current no means that whether we apply LTO or not.
So the configure should be updated if we also provide the thin LTO option.
Following options should be available.
A. no LTO (by default) ./configure
B. with LTO (default=full) ./configure --with-lto
C. with LTO (full LTO designated) ./configure --with-lto=full
D. with LTO (thin LTO designated) ./configure --with-lto=thin
Sorry, something went wrong.
| LTOFLAGS="-flto$LTO_ARG -Wl,-export_dynamic" | ||
| LTOCFLAGS="-flto$LTO_ARG" | ||
| ;; | ||
| *) | ||
| LTOFLAGS="-flto" | ||
| LTOFLAGS="-flto$LTO_ARG" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are the flags (thing or otherwise) supported by all compilers that support LTO?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. Thinlto is a more recent implementation than the default that is specific to clang.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here's something I think about supporting the LTO options.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then we should probably need show an error if the compiler doesn't support it or/and document the limitation, because otherwise, it seems that is a general option that we are exposing regardless of the compiler.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@corona10 - I like it. That's more readable and provides a warning as @pablogsal suggested.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@corona10 Nitpick: gcc doesn't have a concept of full, and if --with-lto=full is configured with gcc, no warnings are thrown and -flto is assumed. Is this assumption sensible? Or would throwing an error on a nonsense input be better than assuming intent?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think given that these options are only available on clang we should just fail if the compiler is not clang. Adding checks to other compilers one by one is going to be suboptimal because CPython can be compiled with almost any C compiler: xcl, icc...
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's discuss the supporting option with the attached PR.
Sorry, something went wrong.
@ned-deily The current configure file in main branch is not the product of running autoconf with configure.ac. What is the best way to proceed? 2fc857a is one example of a change that didn't update configure.ac. I assume that getting this fixed upstream is a prerequisite for getting this PR merged, otherwise autoconf will generate a configure that rips out some recent updates to configure. Perhaps a CI bot to verify that in future PRs autoconf(configure.ac) -> configure would be appropriate? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
This adds support for building cpython with clang's --flto=thin option. Existing --with-lto behavior remains unchanged (default to no, with --with-lto currently using the default compiler lto option).
The tests (make test) currently pass for clang 11.1.0 for each of --with-lto and --with-lto=thin.
https://bugs.python.org/issue44340