On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:13:07AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

Ah, if "this patch set" meant "adding LTO", I stand corrected and I
apologize for my confusion.

Again, I'm not proposing for LTO to be enabled by default. These patches
just make it possible to enable it. Are you saying the possibility
that a future compiler update breaks something is a blocker even for
experimental features?

I agree that we need LTO/PGO to be housebroken from an LKMM viewpoint
before it is enabled.

Can you elaborate what's needed from clang before this can move
forward? For example, if you have specific test cases in mind, we can
always work on including them in the LLVM test suite.

Sami