-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bpo-44340: Add support for building with clang thin lto via --with-lto=thin #26585
Conversation
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! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please add the NEWS.d with blurb tool
@holmanb |
Let's run the https://github.com/python/pyperformance benchmark and compare it with full LTO |
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Build/2021-07-18-05-35-33.bpo-bpo-44340.1xHAZP.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
@@ -1545,7 +1545,7 @@ Optional Packages: | |||
--with-trace-refs enable tracing references for debugging purpose | |||
(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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about
--with-lto[=full|thin] enable Link-Time-Optimization in any build (default is full)
@@ -1545,7 +1545,7 @@ Optional Packages: | |||
--with-trace-refs enable tracing references for debugging purpose | |||
(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 | |||
is no) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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
LTOFLAGS="-flto$LTO_ARG -Wl,-export_dynamic" | ||
LTOCFLAGS="-flto$LTO_ARG" | ||
;; | ||
*) | ||
LTOFLAGS="-flto" | ||
LTOFLAGS="-flto$LTO_ARG" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are the flags (thing
or otherwise) supported by all compilers that support LTO?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No. Thinlto is a more recent implementation than the default that is specific to clang.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here's something I think about supporting the LTO options.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@corona10 - I like it. That's more readable and provides a warning as @pablogsal suggested.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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
...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's discuss the supporting option with the attached PR.
- We may check clang version
- We may check other compiler support (clang, gcc supports LTO itself, others not)
@ned-deily The current I assume that getting this fixed upstream is a prerequisite for getting this PR merged, otherwise autoconf will generate a Perhaps a CI bot to verify that in future PRs |
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