Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "balancedopt".
2013 Jan 14
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
...nd.
>
> I would still like something other than "opt" for the fourth one. "opt"
> seems too generic given the other levels.
>
I agree that having just "opt" seems too generic in comparison. Maybe
something like "stdopt" (or even the longer "balancedopt") since it
corresponds 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-...
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
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
...still like something other than "opt" for the fourth one. "opt"
>> seems too generic given the other levels.
>>
>
> I agree that having just "opt" seems too generic in comparison. Maybe
> something like "stdopt" (or even the longer "balancedopt") since it
> corresponds to -O2 and is intended to represent a good optimization level
> for most cases with a balance of compile time, space, and runtime
> efficiency.
>
I don't like a qualifier because all the qualifiers I tried don't really
add meaning. I don't see...
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:
> 4) Good, well-balanced optimizations, or '-O2'
> - Attribute: opt (new attribute)
Since all other levels have a qualifier, I'd suggest we do that here as
well. Perhaps balancedopt?
> 5) Optimize to the max or '-O3'
> - Attribute: maxopt (new attribute)
> - Goal: produce the fastest binary possible.
> This level should always produce binaries at least as fast as opt, but
> they might be faster at the cost of them being larger and taking more
> time...
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
2013 Jan 14
17
[LLVMdev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
This has been an idea floating around in my head for a while and after
several discussions with others it continues to hold up so I thought I
would mail it out. Sorry for cross posting to both lists, but this is an
issue that would significantly impact both LLVM and Clang.
Essentially, LLVM provides canned optimization "levels" for frontends to
re-use. This is nothing new. However, we