search for: inliners

RFC: Inlining Report Motivation Making good inlining choices while optimizing an application is often key to achieving optimal performance. While the compiler's default inlining heuristics sometimes provide great out-of-box results, optimal performance is sometimes achieved only after varying the settings of certain compiler options related to inlining or adding "always_inline" or

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

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

...it is useful to know that a lot of this discussion is based on the assumption that the inliner will be making the wrong decisions. Dale comes at this from the premise that the inliner will always make the wrong decision and therefore it is useful to give the user some way to influence the inliners heuristic (other than attr(noinline/alwaysinline)). There are three questions to consider: 1. whether a function is "semantically inline" should make it more attractive to inline. 2. whether a function that is "syntactically inline" should make it more attractive to inlin...

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

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Smith" <richard at metafoo.co.uk> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "cfe commits" <cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>, "List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 8:08:38 PM > Subject: Re:

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

On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Vikram S. Adve wrote: >>> Why can't the compiler pass just call InlineFunction(CallSite) on >>> the callsite it wants inlined? The only way that can fail is if >>> LLVM cannot ever inline the call (e.g. it uses varargs). > >> In some cases, that would be fine. But in other

On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:31 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote: > > >> I know/hope that the proposal isn't for the inlinehint to be a >> synonym >> for "force inline", it would just raise the threshold to increase the >> likeliness that it would be inlined. The question is whether >> "something being c++ inline" in any way is really

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:00 PM, David Greene<dag at cray.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 26 August 2009 12:59, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> class X { >> int A(int x) {....} >> inline int B(int x); >> }; >> inline int X::B(int x) {...} >> >> Per the language standard, A and B are semantically identical, both >> "inline".

Hello Syzbot On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:26:02 +0800 syzbot wrote: > > Hello, > > syzbot has tested the proposed patch but the reproducer still triggered crash: > memory leak in vhost_net_ioctl > Oh sorry for my poor patch. > ANGE): hsr_slave_1: link becomes ready > 2019/06/13 18:24:57 executed programs: 18 > BUG: memory leak > unreferenced object 0xffff88811cbc6ac0

Hello Syzbot On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:26:02 +0800 syzbot wrote: > > Hello, > > syzbot has tested the proposed patch but the reproducer still triggered crash: > memory leak in vhost_net_ioctl > Oh sorry for my poor patch. > ANGE): hsr_slave_1: link becomes ready > 2019/06/13 18:24:57 executed programs: 18 > BUG: memory leak > unreferenced object 0xffff88811cbc6ac0

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > > To: "Richard Smith" <richard at metafoo.co.uk> > > Cc: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com>, "cfe commits" < > cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>,

On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:02 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote: >> It's actually the other way around. llvm has always ignored the >> "inline" keyword and now we are finding out we are missing some >> important cases. > > Okay. It's the "other way around" in terms of history, but it looks > like the conclusion might be the same: Purely heuristics-based

You may have noticed I added an "inlinehint" attribute to the IR yesterday, to represent user declarations that hint inlining would be a good idea ("inline" keyword). Chris and I have been discussing how to hook it up to the C++ FE. Consider: class X { int A(int x) {....} inline int B(int x); }; inline int X::B(int x) {...} Per the language standard, A and B

Hi, I want to have some functions in my code inline so I use the *inline * keyword: *inline void foo() {}* On some functions the compiler inlines the function but it fails to do so on other functions and thus I get a linkage error: *error: undefined reference to 'foo'* What are the conditions that make the compiler refuse inline? Thanks, David p.s. I know that there are ways to pass

Vikram S. Adve wrote: Hmmm. It seems the discussion has grown a little bit larger than I had intended. :) Basically what I think would be useful is an option to the inliner that gives it a list of functions to skip when inlining. My argument for this is that we have several transformations now that search for calls to specific functions; if those functions are inlined, the transform pass

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > I see that you are objecting explicit inline control. > > The main problem is that inlining is absolutely crucial for some > "modern" programming styles. E.g. we use a huge collection of small C++ > template classes and template metaclasses, most of which have very > trivial and limited functionality (think of it

Hello Dmitry On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:12:06 +0800 Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:07 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton at sina.com> wrote: > > > > Hello Jason > > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:10:39 +0800 Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > This is basically a kfree(ubuf) after the second vhost_net_flush() in > > > vhost_net_release(). >

Hello Dmitry On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:12:06 +0800 Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:07 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton at sina.com> wrote: > > > > Hello Jason > > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:10:39 +0800 Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > This is basically a kfree(ubuf) after the second vhost_net_flush() in > > > vhost_net_release(). >