Djordje Todorovic via llvm-dev
2021-Apr-29 10:30 UTC
[llvm-dev] llvm-dwarfdump stats for inlined functions
Hi Caroline, Thanks for your response.>When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would have abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check on.OK, as Paul mentioned in the previous mail, it might be better if we calculated the "#inlined functions without abstract origin". Thanks, Djordje ________________________________ From: Caroline Tice <cmtice at google.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 6:36 PM To: Djordje Todorovic <Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; aprantl at apple.com <aprantl at apple.com>; dblaikie at gmail.com <dblaikie at gmail.com>; asowda at cisco.com <asowda at cisco.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] llvm-dwarfdump stats for inlined functions On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:11 AM Djordje Todorovic <Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com<mailto:Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com>> wrote: Hi, As discussed on the https://reviews.llvm.org/D101025, we have noticed that there are two different stat categories for inlined functions when using `llvm-dwarfdump –statistics`: # inlined functions # inlined functions with abstract origin and it was introduced after the D58849. We were wondering if there is a particular motivation of doing so. When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would have abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check on. -- Caroline cmtice at google.com<mailto:cmtice at google.com> Having an inlined_subroutine DIE with no abstract_origin attribute does not have so many benefits, so it might be better if we have an assertion/error (e.g., in the AsmPrinter) when we face such situation (or just to avoid dumping it into the final DWARF). Any thoughts? Best regards, Djordje -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210429/d16bf477/attachment.html>
Caroline Tice via llvm-dev
2021-Apr-29 14:35 UTC
[llvm-dev] llvm-dwarfdump stats for inlined functions
That is fine with me if you want to make that change. -- Caroline cmtice at google.com On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 3:30 AM Djordje Todorovic < Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> wrote:> Hi Caroline, > > Thanks for your response. > > >When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would have > abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check on. > > OK, as Paul mentioned in the previous mail, it might be better if we > calculated the "#inlined functions without abstract origin". > > Thanks, > Djordje > ------------------------------ > *From:* Caroline Tice <cmtice at google.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 28, 2021 6:36 PM > *To:* Djordje Todorovic <Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> > *Cc:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; aprantl at apple.com < > aprantl at apple.com>; dblaikie at gmail.com <dblaikie at gmail.com>; > asowda at cisco.com <asowda at cisco.com> > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] llvm-dwarfdump stats for inlined functions > > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:11 AM Djordje Todorovic < > Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As discussed on the https://reviews.llvm.org/D101025, we have noticed > that there are two different stat categories for inlined functions when > using `llvm-dwarfdump –statistics`: > > # inlined functions > > # inlined functions with abstract origin > > and it was introduced after the *D58849. *We were wondering if there is a > particular motivation of doing so. > > > > > When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would have > abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check on. > > -- Caroline > cmtice at google.com > > > Having an inlined_subroutine DIE with no abstract_origin attribute does > not have so many benefits, so it might be better if we have an > assertion/error (e.g., in the AsmPrinter) when we face such situation (or > just to avoid dumping it into the final DWARF). > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Best regards, > > Djordje > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210429/621e062e/attachment.html>
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2021-Apr-29 16:42 UTC
[llvm-dev] llvm-dwarfdump stats for inlined functions
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 3:30 AM Djordje Todorovic <Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> wrote:> > Hi Caroline, > > Thanks for your response. > > >When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would have abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check on. > > OK, as Paul mentioned in the previous mail, it might be better if we calculated the "#inlined functions without abstract origin".If we're keeping the stat anyway, I suspect it's probably not worth the hassle of renaming/reving the format/etc. But I don't have strong opinions on it. - Dave> > Thanks, > Djordje > ________________________________ > From: Caroline Tice <cmtice at google.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 6:36 PM > To: Djordje Todorovic <Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; aprantl at apple.com <aprantl at apple.com>; dblaikie at gmail.com <dblaikie at gmail.com>; asowda at cisco.com <asowda at cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] llvm-dwarfdump stats for inlined functions > > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:11 AM Djordje Todorovic <Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As discussed on the https://reviews.llvm.org/D101025, we have noticed that there are two different stat categories for inlined functions when using `llvm-dwarfdump –statistics`: > > # inlined functions > > # inlined functions with abstract origin > > and it was introduced after the D58849. We were wondering if there is a particular motivation of doing so. > > > > > When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would have abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check on. > > -- Caroline > cmtice at google.com > > > Having an inlined_subroutine DIE with no abstract_origin attribute does not have so many benefits, so it might be better if we have an assertion/error (e.g., in the AsmPrinter) when we face such situation (or just to avoid dumping it into the final DWARF). > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Best regards, > > Djordje > >