From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-387162-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16262 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2012 10:45:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 16246 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Mar 2012 10:45:53 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:45:39 +0000
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/51663] Desirable/undesirable elimination of unused variables & functions at -O0, -O0 -flto and -O0 -fwhole-program
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51663-4-2jHdxK2gLY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51663-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51663-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg02215.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663

--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> 2012-03-26 10:44:57 UTC ---
> Yes.  I think for -O0 -flto we should default to 1:1 partitioning and
> _not_ do the renaming of local symbols though ... of course -O0 -flto
> does not make too much sense?

In longer run, I think it would make sense for slim lto, so one don't need to
ship two versions of a same slim-LTO library (one for optimized builds and one
for unoptimized)
Still the LTO code there will be early optimized...

1:1 partitioning has quite serve performance implications that defeat purpose
of -O0, too.

Honza