Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "callpenalti".
Did you mean:
callpenalty
2010 Nov 24
7
[LLVMdev] LLVM Inliner
Hi, I browsed the LLVM inliner implementation, and it seems there is room
for improvement. (I have not read it too carefully, so correct me if what I
observed is wrong).
First the good side of the inliner -- the function level summary and inline
cost estimation is more elaborate and complete than gcc. For instance, it
considers callsite arguments and the effects of optimization enabled by
2010 Nov 24
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM Inliner
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I browsed the LLVM inliner implementation, and it seems there is room
> for improvement. (I have not read it too carefully, so correct me if what I
> observed is wrong).
> First the good side of the inliner -- the function level summary and inline
> cost estimation is more elaborate and
2010 Nov 24
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM Inliner
Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Hi, I browsed the LLVM inliner implementation, and it seems there is
> room for improvement. (I have not read it too carefully, so correct me
> if what I observed is wrong).
>
> First the good side of the inliner -- the function level summary and
> inline cost estimation is more elaborate and complete than gcc. For
> instance, it considers callsite
2010 Nov 28
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM Inliner
On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Hi, I browsed the LLVM inliner implementation, and it seems there is room for improvement. (I have not read it too carefully, so correct me if what I observed is wrong).
>
> First the good side of the inliner -- the function level summary and inline cost estimation is more elaborate and complete than gcc. For instance, it considers
2010 Jun 08
1
[LLVMdev] the PartialSpecialization pass (was Re: Is there a "callback optimization"?)
Good evening, Kenneth.
Thank you to apply (and rewrite my naive code better)
and to file the issue to http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=7304
I have checked r105528 at this morning.
I think the pass must be still cleaned up and rewritten.
There are my two proposals for enhancement.
1) To separate Specialization(and rewriting callsites) to other module.
It would be better if new module were
2010 Nov 24
3
[LLVMdev] LLVM Inliner
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote:
> Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
>> Hi, I browsed the LLVM inliner implementation, and it seems there is
>> room for improvement. (I have not read it too carefully, so correct me
>> if what I observed is wrong).
>>
>> First the good side of the inliner -- the function level summary
2010 Nov 29
3
[LLVMdev] LLVM Inliner
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> > Hi, I browsed the LLVM inliner implementation, and it seems there is room
> for improvement. (I have not read it too carefully, so correct me if what I
> observed is wrong).
> >
> > First the good side of the inliner -- the