rustc_llvm: Emit module summaries when using -Clto=fat#159029
Open
erickt wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
rustbot
added
A-LLVM
Collaborator
|
r? @cuviper rustbot has assigned @cuviper. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
PiJoules
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2026
| /// "ThinLTO" metadata is defined and explicitly set to zero. Otherwise, | ||
| /// the thin LTO block ID will be emitted. | ||
| static void forceFullLTOSummary(Module *M) { | ||
| if (!M->getModuleFlag("ThinLTO")) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suspect this can be an assert(!M->getModuleFlag("ThinLTO")) since this should never really be called if thinlto was used at all.
Contributor
|
cc @ilovepi |
erickt
force-pushed
the
lto-module-summaries
branch
from
141d64a to
10ed1e0
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Currently, module summaries are only emitted with thin lto. If we would link full/fat lto'd rust code against lto'd c++ code built with CFI (or WPD), those passes would fail during the link step because the participating rust modules are missing module summaries. Rust code does not know at compile-time if it would be participating in some special link which may require module summaries, so this PR ensures module summaries are unconditionally emitted for full/fat lto, just like with thin lto. The WriteBitcodeToFile function just invokes the normal BitcodeWriterPass under the hood, but doesn't provide a way to set the argument for emitting module summaries. So this patch just adds the pass directly and sets that argument.
erickt
force-pushed
the
lto-module-summaries
branch
from
10ed1e0 to
25ec857
Compare
Collaborator
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
Collaborator
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)Important For more information how to resolve CI failures of this job, visit this link. |
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
5 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.
Currently, module summaries are only emitted with thin lto. If we would link full/fat lto'd rust code against lto'd c++ code built with CFI (or WPD), those passes would fail during the link step because the participating rust modules are missing module summaries. Rust code does not know at compile-time if it would be participating in some special link which may require module summaries, so this PR ensures module summaries are unconditionally emitted for full/fat lto, just like with thin lto.
The WriteBitcodeToFile function just invokes the normal BitcodeWriterPass under the hood, but doesn't provide a way to set the argument for emitting module summaries. So this patch just adds the pass directly and sets that argument.
This is a rebase of @PiJoules's #158099, which also should fix up the tests with the gcc tools.