Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "edgefreq".
Did you mean:
edgefreqs
2009 Jul 14
0
[LLVMdev] Profiling in LLVM Patch Followup 1
...avoids the member state.
> class ProfileAnnotator : public AssemblyAnnotationWriter {
> - std::map<const Function *, unsigned> &FuncFreqs;
> - std::map<const BasicBlock*, unsigned> &BlockFreqs;
> - std::map<ProfileInfoLoader::Edge, unsigned> &EdgeFreqs;
> + ProfileInfo *PI;
I would advocate making this a reference instead of a pointer; that
makes it obvious that this class doesn't own the ProfileInfo, and that
the client is responsible for its memory management.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Andreas
Neustifter<e0325716 at studen...
2009 Jul 02
1
[LLVMdev] Profiling in LLVM Patch Followup 1
Hi,
this is the first in a series of patches to cleanup and improve the LLVM Profiling Infrastructure.
First and foremost this patch removes duplicate functionality from ProfileInfoLoader and ProfileInfo:
The ProfileInfoLoader performed not only the loading of the profile information but also some synthesis of block and function execution counts from edge profiling information. Since the
2009 Jul 22
4
[LLVMdev] Profiling in LLVM Patch Followup 1
...ate.
>
>> class ProfileAnnotator : public AssemblyAnnotationWriter {
>> - std::map<const Function *, unsigned> &FuncFreqs;
>> - std::map<const BasicBlock*, unsigned> &BlockFreqs;
>> - std::map<ProfileInfoLoader::Edge, unsigned> &EdgeFreqs;
>> + ProfileInfo *PI;
>
> I would advocate making this a reference instead of a pointer; that
> makes it obvious that this class doesn't own the ProfileInfo, and that
> the client is responsible for its memory management.
No objections.
Thanks, Andi
2009 Jul 01
12
[LLVMdev] Profiling in LLVM Patch
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Dunbar wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> First, thanks again for undertaking this work and submitting it back. There is a
> lot of good stuff here and it would be great to see it get back into the tree.
Thanks for taking the time to review this, I know its a huge patch. I still have a few questions on how you would like this patch to be re-factored and split up.
> [...]