From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108062 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2015 23:59:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 108051 invoked by uid 89); 25 Nov 2015 23:59:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mga14.intel.com Received: from mga14.intel.com (HELO mga14.intel.com) (192.55.52.115) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:59:00 +0000 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Nov 2015 15:59:00 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from tassilo.jf.intel.com (HELO tassilo.localdomain) ([10.7.201.156]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Nov 2015 15:58:59 -0800 Received: by tassilo.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C94C6302AFE; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:58:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:24:00 -0000 From: Andi Kleen To: Jan Hubicka Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rguenther@suse.de, hongjiu.lu@intel.com, ccoutant@google.com, iant@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Getting LTO incremental linking work Message-ID: <20151125235858.GI8438@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <20151125085912.GD58491@kam.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151125085912.GD58491@kam.mff.cuni.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg03166.txt.bz2 > Moreover we do have all infrastructure ready to implement 3). Our tree merging > and symbol table handling is fuly incremental and I think made a patch to > implement it today. The scheme is easy: What happens when .S (assembler) files are part of the incremential object? The kernel does that. Your patch would do the final generation in this case, right? In theory we could change the build system to avoid that case though, but it would need some changes. It would be better if that could be handled somehow. -Andi