Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "b5c00d3f".
2013 Jan 14
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
...nds to -O2 and is intended to represent a good optimization level
for most cases with a balance of compile time, space, and runtime
efficiency.
- Kaelyn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130114/b5c00d3f/attachment.html>
2013 Jan 14
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> writes:
> minsizeopt
> sizeopt
> quickopt
> opt
> maxopt
I prefer being consistent and putting "opt" at the end.
I would still like something other than "opt" for the fourth one. "opt"
seems too generic given the other levels.
-David
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