[llvm-dev] RFC: Building GlobalISel by default

Philip Reames via llvm-dev
Sat, 14 Jan 2017 05:21:40 -0000

I would lean towards doing this, but don't have an strong opinion either
way.

Would it be possible (in another thread) to get a brief status report of
where we are with GlobalISEL overall?

Philip


On 01/13/2017 05:54 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Now, four backends (if I am counting right: X86, ARM, AArch64, AMDGPU) are
working on bringing-up GlobalISel, I’d like to switch the default of the
LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL variable in CMake, such that the framework gets built by
default.
>
> ** Impact of Flipping the Switch **
>
> * Upsides *
>
> For people developing on GlobalISel, it will:
> - Simplify the CMake command to type :)
> - Build/Test GlobalISel on all the LLVM bots
>
> For people not developing on GlobalISel, it will:
> - Test that GlobalISel still works with your changes (make check will test
that for you)
> - Allow you to play with it!
>
> Basically flipping the default CMake setting will give access to all the
ISel schemes that we have in LLVM, instead of just SDISel and FastISel.
>
> * Downsides *
>
> For people developing on GlobalISel, it will:
> - Leave the status as it is now, meaning that mainly only people working on
GlobalISel look at the failures of GlobalISel specific bots
>
> For people not developing for GlobalISel, it will:
> - Increase the compile time since the GlobalISel framework and the related
target specific parts will have to be built
> - Increase the size of the binary (depending on what backend you pull)
> - Require the setting of an additional CMake variable to disable it
(-DLLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL=OFF)
>
>
> What do people think?
>
> Thanks,
> -Quentin
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org