llvm dev - May 2016 - -mllvm -inline-threshold no longer honored?

While checking on the status of
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22657 in current llvm/clang
trunk, I noticed that the previous work-around for recovering the
missing in-lining of the  c-ray 1.1 benchmarks of passing -mllvm
-inline-threshold=500 no longer works. This regression doesn't exist
in the 3.8.0 release. Any idea what commit in 3.9svn might have
introduced this regression?
       Jack

I think r257832  introduced this regression. I'm looking into it.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jack Howarth via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> While checking on the status of
> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22657 in current llvm/clang
> trunk, I noticed that the previous work-around for recovering the
> missing in-lining of the  c-ray 1.1 benchmarks of passing -mllvm
> -inline-threshold=500 no longer works. This regression doesn't exist
> in the 3.8.0 release. Any idea what commit in 3.9svn might have
> introduced this regression?
>        Jack
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160517/343424e5/attachment.html>

I can confirm that applying r257832 onto the llvm 3.8.0 sources does
indeed introduce the regression in handling of -mllvm
-inline-threshold=500 for the c-ray 1.1 benchmark. It would be nice if
the underlying problem in the cost-handling for that benchmark could
be addressed as well (since few users will be aware of the -mllvm
-inline-threshold= workaround).

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com>
wrote:
> I think r257832  introduced this regression. I'm looking into it.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jack Howarth via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> While checking on the status of
>> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22657 in current llvm/clang
>> trunk, I noticed that the previous work-around for recovering the
>> missing in-lining of the  c-ray 1.1 benchmarks of passing -mllvm
>> -inline-threshold=500 no longer works. This regression doesn't
exist
>> in the 3.8.0 release. Any idea what commit in 3.9svn might have
>> introduced this regression?
>>        Jack
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>

Easwaran,
     I can confirm that, after the commit of r270153, -mllvm
-inline-threshold=500 is honored again as tested with the c-ray 1.1
benchmark. Thanks for fixing that issue.
        Jack
ps Any chance you can take a look at improving the default
inline-threshold being used for the c-ray benchmark?

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com>
wrote:
> I think r257832  introduced this regression. I'm looking into it.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jack Howarth via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> While checking on the status of
>> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22657 in current llvm/clang
>> trunk, I noticed that the previous work-around for recovering the
>> missing in-lining of the  c-ray 1.1 benchmarks of passing -mllvm
>> -inline-threshold=500 no longer works. This regression doesn't
exist
>> in the 3.8.0 release. Any idea what commit in 3.9svn might have
>> introduced this regression?
>>        Jack
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>