Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "7692ff89".
2013 Jan 14
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
On 1/14/2013 3:23 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>
> This is a great question. My plan would be: inlining doesn't impact the
> attributes. The inliner will be free to look at both the caller and the
> callee's attributes to choose the best inlining decision.
The problem is not so much with the inlining decisions, as much as it is
with keeping the attributes in the inlined code.
2013 Jan 14
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
...sion to inline, then the intent of the caller should
apply to the inlined code. If it wouldn't apply, the inliner made the wrong
decision.
-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130114/7692ff89/attachment.html>
2013 Jan 14
4
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Justin Holewinski <
justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I understand the attributes correctly, they would be function-level
> attributes applied to IR functions, correct? I'm curious what the
> semantics would be for cross-function optimization. For example, consider
> a function "foo" defined with maxopt and a function