When doing linker-plugin based LTO, write LLVM bitcode obj-files instead of embedding the bitcode into the regular object file.#52109
Merged
bors merged 2 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom Jul 7, 2018
Conversation
instead of embedding the bitcode into the regular object file.
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Member
|
@bors: r+ Nice! I like the idea of one day doing this by default for |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 4a26964 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2018
When doing linker-plugin based LTO, write LLVM bitcode obj-files instead of embedding the bitcode into the regular object file. This PR makes the compiler emit LLVM bitcode object files instead of regular object files with the IR embed when compiling for linker-plugin-based LTO. The reasoning for switching the strategy is this: - Embedding bitcode in a section of the object file actually makes us save bitcode twice in rlibs and Rust dylibs, once for linker-based LTO and once for rustc-based LTO. That's a waste of space. - When compiling for plugin-based LTO, one usually has no use for the machine code also present in the object file. Generating it is a waste of time. - When compiling for plugin-based LTO, `rustc` will skip running ThinLTO because the linker will do that anyway. This has the side effect of then generating poorly optimized machine code, which makes it even less useful (and may lead to users not knowing why their code is slow instead of getting an error). - Not having machine code available makes it impossible for the linker to silently fall back to not inlining stuff across language boundaries. - This is what Clang does and according to [the documentation](https://llvm.org/docs/BitCodeFormat.html#native-object-file-wrapper-format) is the better supported option. - The current behavior (minus the runtime performance problems) is still available via `-Z embed-bitcode` (we might want to do this for `libstd` at some point). r? @alexcrichton
Collaborator
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
This PR makes the compiler emit LLVM bitcode object files instead of regular object files with the IR embed when compiling for linker-plugin-based LTO. The reasoning for switching the strategy is this:
rustcwill skip running ThinLTO because the linker will do that anyway. This has the side effect of then generating poorly optimized machine code, which makes it even less useful (and may lead to users not knowing why their code is slow instead of getting an error).-Z embed-bitcode(we might want to do this forlibstdat some point).r? @alexcrichton