llvm dev - Nov 2011 - [LLVMdev] Instrumentation passes and -O0 optimization level

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at
google.com>wrote:
>
>> PS. Should we move the discussion to cfe-commits or it's ok to
>> continue the review process here?
>>
>
> For future reference, please send patches which touch both LLVM and Clang
> to llvm-commits and cfe-commits. However, looking at the Clang side of the
> patch, it is totally fine. =D
>
Alex,
Now, the patch is actually a bit confusing to me.
EP_AlwaysEnabled should mean "works with O0 after inliner and with >= O1
somewhere late", but it doesn't look like it works this way (otherwise,
you
wouldn't need to call PMBuilder.addExtension twice).
?

--kcc


>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111129/59d8ad63/attachment.html>

>
> Alex,
> Now, the patch is actually a bit confusing to me.
> EP_AlwaysEnabled should mean "works with O0 after inliner and with
>= O1
> somewhere late", but it doesn't look like it works this way
(otherwise, you
> wouldn't need to call PMBuilder.addExtension twice).
> ?
This was actually my question to Devang.
Any other suggestions for the EP name?

On Nov 29, 2011, at 11:26 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
>> 
>> Alex,
>> Now, the patch is actually a bit confusing to me.
>> EP_AlwaysEnabled should mean "works with O0 after inliner and with
>= O1
>> somewhere late", but it doesn't look like it works this way
(otherwise, you
>> wouldn't need to call PMBuilder.addExtension twice).
>> ?
> This was actually my question to Devang.
> Any other suggestions for the EP name?
OK, I withdraw my suggestion :)

-
Devang