msharp at codeaurora.org
2013-Sep-13 18:05 UTC
[LLVMdev] Removing legacy profiling code from LLVM
Chandler Carruth wrote:>Alright, I'm ready to nuke it. Last chance to say stop.Stop.>For context of others, this has come up repeatedly: no one we know of is >using EdgeProfiling.cpp, PathProfiling.cpp, and the >lib/Analysis/Profile*Pass.cpp collection of tools.We've been actively using it since at least 2.8. True, we haven't been vocal about it. While I can see perhaps getting rid of some of the older ProfileInfoT related stuff, certainly the instrumentation portion and the metadata loader (ProfileDataLoaderPass) portion are of use to us. Isn't Bob Wilson also using, or at least interested in, some of the metadata based profiling too? While we're talking about it, there are associated portions under runtime/libprofile that we're using too.>...I would like to garbage collect and help pave the way for new stuff.Have I missed a proposal somewhere? I'd be interested to hear about what you've got in mind. --Mike
On Sep 13, 2013, at 11:05 AM, msharp at codeaurora.org wrote:> Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> Alright, I'm ready to nuke it. Last chance to say stop. > > Stop. > >> For context of others, this has come up repeatedly: no one we know of is >> using EdgeProfiling.cpp, PathProfiling.cpp, and the >> lib/Analysis/Profile*Pass.cpp collection of tools. > We've been actively using it since at least 2.8. True, we haven't been > vocal about it. > > While I can see perhaps getting rid of some of the older ProfileInfoT > related stuff, certainly the instrumentation portion and the metadata > loader (ProfileDataLoaderPass) portion are of use to us. > > Isn't Bob Wilson also using, or at least interested in, some of the > metadata based profiling too?No, I am not interested in any of the things that Chandler has proposed to remove.> > While we're talking about it, there are associated portions under > runtime/libprofile that we're using too. > >> ...I would like to garbage collect and help pave the way for new stuff. > Have I missed a proposal somewhere? I'd be interested to hear about what > you've got in mind.Yes, there have been several different discussions based on proposal from me and Diego.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:05 AM, <msharp at codeaurora.org> wrote:> Chandler Carruth wrote: > > >Alright, I'm ready to nuke it. Last chance to say stop. > > Stop. > > >For context of others, this has come up repeatedly: no one we know of is > >using EdgeProfiling.cpp, PathProfiling.cpp, and the > >lib/Analysis/Profile*Pass.cpp collection of tools. > We've been actively using it since at least 2.8. True, we haven't been > vocal about it. > > While I can see perhaps getting rid of some of the older ProfileInfoT > related stuff, certainly the instrumentation portion and the metadata > loader (ProfileDataLoaderPass) portion are of use to us. > > Isn't Bob Wilson also using, or at least interested in, some of the > metadata based profiling too? > > While we're talking about it, there are associated portions under > runtime/libprofile that we're using too. >Since I have seen no patches from you to this code since 2.8, maybe you should move the pieces in the mainline tree to live with the pieces that clearly are out-of-tree? I don't think we can support one half of a PGO system in tree because the other half is in an out-of-tree repository. That doesn't really make sense.> > >...I would like to garbage collect and help pave the way for new stuff. > Have I missed a proposal somewhere? I'd be interested to hear about what > you've got in mind. > > --Mike > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130913/0c9e28ee/attachment.html>
msharp at codeaurora.org
2013-Sep-13 20:32 UTC
[LLVMdev] Removing legacy profiling code from LLVM
It appears to me as if you're proposing removing all the existing readers/writers, both the really old ones and the metadata ones, the instrumentation passes, and the implied file format for profile data. Is this correct? While I'm not against considering migrating our work, I think it would be better if the new system was in place before removing the old. --Mike
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [LLVMdev] Removing legacy profiling code from LLVM
- [LLVMdev] Removing legacy profiling code from LLVM
- [LLVMdev] Removing legacy profiling code from LLVM
- [LLVMdev] Problem with compiling the runtime libary
- [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] 2.6 pre-release2 ready for testing