Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "__attribute_".
Did you mean:
__attribute__
2018 Apr 04
2
[RFC] Adding function attributes to represent codegen optimization level
...codeaurora.org' <mcrosier at codeaurora.org>; 'Chandler Carruth' <chandlerc at gmail.com>; 'Eric Christopher' <echristo at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Adding function attributes to represent codegen optimization level
Would implementing GCC’s ‘__attribute__((optimize(...)))’ help?
I can’t find any good documentation for this attribute, but it seems that GCC supports this in two forms:
__attribute__((optimize(2)))
meaning optimise equivalent to ‘-O2’, and:
__attribute_((optimize("fblah", "O1")))
meaning optimise with...
2018 Apr 04
0
[RFC] Adding function attributes to represent codegen optimization level
...mcrosier at codeaurora.org>; 'Chandler Carruth' <chandlerc at gmail.com>;
> 'Eric Christopher' <echristo at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Adding function attributes to
> represent codegen optimization level
>
> Would implementing GCC’s ‘__attribute__((optimize(...)))’ help?
>
> I can’t find any good documentation for this attribute, but it seems
> that GCC supports this in two forms:
>
> __attribute__((optimize(2)))
>
> meaning optimise equivalent to ‘-O2’, and:
>
> __attribute_((optimize("fblah", "O1...
2018 Apr 04
0
[RFC] Adding function attributes to represent codegen optimization level
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:47 PM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
> All,
> A recent commit, D43040/r324557, changed the behavior of the gold plugin
> when compiling with LTO. The change now causes the codegen optimization
> level to default to CodeGenOpt::Default (i.e., -O2) rather than use the
> LTO optimization level. The argument was made that the LTO
2018 Apr 03
5
[RFC] Adding function attributes to represent codegen optimization level
All,
A recent commit, D43040/r324557, changed the behavior of the gold plugin
when compiling with LTO. The change now causes the codegen optimization
level to default to CodeGenOpt::Default (i.e., -O2) rather than use the
LTO optimization level. The argument was made that the LTO optimization
level should control the amount of cross-module optimizations done by
LTO, but it should not