Preliminary work for incremental ThinLTO (CGU name edition) #53356
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @oli-obk (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors try |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2018
Preliminary work for incremental ThinLTO (CGU name edition) Bring back the first half of #52266 but hopefully without the performance regression.
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
☀️ Test successful - status-travis |
|
@rust-timer build 51257c8 |
|
Success: Queued 51257c8 with parent f45f525, comparison URL. |
michaelwoerister
force-pushed
the
itlto
branch
from
1ef7036
to
d662083
Compare
|
@Mark-Simulacrum, it seems that commits get pushed to the front of the queue as fast as perf.rlo can benchmark them, so f45f525 (the baseline of the try-build) won't be tested until bors runs into trouble and doesn't merge things for a while |
|
I've wanted to prioritize parent commits for a while, but haven't had a chance to do the legwork quite yet. Can you open an issue? |
This was referenced Aug 15, 2018
|
Success: Queued 51257c8 with parent f45f525, comparison URL. |
|
OK, with the caching added, this seems like an overall improvement in compile times. Maybe r? @alexcrichton, who already reviewed the previous version of this PR? The first three commits did not change wrt to #52266. The last one is the same as f6894eb, plus some caching for CGU name generation added. There's nothing actually directly related to incremental ThinLTO in this PR. |
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit d662083 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit d662083 with merge fb1add70c961d02360e01efaff13cfa98c7d8e6c... |
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
@bors retry GitHub archive issue.
|
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2018
Preliminary work for incremental ThinLTO (CGU name edition) Bring back the first half of #52266 but hopefully without the performance regression.
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
|
@michaelwoerister After this PR, I'm unable to link Fuchsia binaries. The error I get is here. Any idea what might have caused this? (the error only occurs when compiling w/ ThinLTO). |
|
Interesting. The PR does change the names of object files when doing ThinLTO, but that shouldn't be a problem. Can you open issue? We should investigate further. |
|
@michaelwoerister Opened #53794 |
|
👍 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bring back the first half of #52266 but hopefully without the performance regression.