Renato Golin
2015-Feb-27 22:01 UTC
[LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
On 27 February 2015 at 21:26, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote:> Which brings us to my fallback proposal: what about disabling the > pass on darwin only?That's a decision for Jim/Evan. I'm ok if they are.> As for other targets, as a first step, making the pass run under -O3 > rather than -O1 is hopefully agreeable to everyone?Sounds reasonable. Even though it conflicts with LTO, that's what O3 means, as you said, instability. People at O3 might want to fiddle with the passes (on/off) to get the best performance for their own code/workload. cheers, --renato
Ahmed Bougacha
2015-Feb-27 22:15 UTC
[LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> On 27 February 2015 at 21:26, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: >> Which brings us to my fallback proposal: what about disabling the >> pass on darwin only? > > That's a decision for Jim/Evan. I'm ok if they are.Jim, thoughts?> >> As for other targets, as a first step, making the pass run under -O3 >> rather than -O1 is hopefully agreeable to everyone? > > Sounds reasonable.Great!> Even though it conflicts with LTO, that's what O3 means, as you said, > instability. People at O3 might want to fiddle with the passes > (on/off) to get the best performance for their own code/workload.By the way, I'm not convinced LTO being either -O3 or -O0 is sensible. But that's a discussion for another day =) -Ahmed> cheers, > --renato
Ahmed Bougacha
2015-Feb-27 22:47 UTC
[LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote:> By the way, I'm not convinced LTO being either -O3 or -O0 is sensible. > But that's a discussion for another day =)Duncan tells me there is a plan to put -mno-global-merge into module flags for this precise reason, so this would disable it for LTO as well, when -O3 wasn't specified. This takes care of our non-O3 concerns; I'll have a look! -Ahmed
Jim Grosbach
2015-Feb-27 23:06 UTC
[LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >> On 27 February 2015 at 21:26, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Which brings us to my fallback proposal: what about disabling the >>> pass on darwin only? >> >> That's a decision for Jim/Evan. I'm ok if they are. > > Jim, thoughts?I would prefer Darwin not differ in this regard, but I don’t feel incredibly strongly about it. Just a general preference to keeping platform dependencies and differences to a minimum. Whatever y’all decide is fine with me.> >> >>> As for other targets, as a first step, making the pass run under -O3 >>> rather than -O1 is hopefully agreeable to everyone? >> >> Sounds reasonable. > > Great! > >> Even though it conflicts with LTO, that's what O3 means, as you said, >> instability. People at O3 might want to fiddle with the passes >> (on/off) to get the best performance for their own code/workload. > > By the way, I'm not convinced LTO being either -O3 or -O0 is sensible. > But that's a discussion for another day =) > > -Ahmed > >> cheers, >> --renato
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
- [LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
- [LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
- [LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
- [LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?