Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "m_bar".
Did you mean:
_bar
2019 Feb 22
11
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
...dy help with this, that's awesome.
I'm almost afraid to make the next suggestion, but here goes:
In more complicated/wide-impact cases, it would be possible to
stage a data-member name conversion into "small-bang" iterations
using a C++ tactic like this:
class Foo {
int m_bar; // The renamed member.
int &Bar = m_bar; // TEMPORARY alias using the old name.
};
This would have to be done sparingly and for good reason, such as
when the names are known across many components/subprojects and
doing them all at once would be really too much. Someone would
have to...
2019 Feb 22
2
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
...;m almost afraid to make the next suggestion, but here goes:
>> In more complicated/wide-impact cases, it would be possible to
>> stage a data-member name conversion into "small-bang" iterations
>> using a C++ tactic like this:
>> class Foo {
>> int m_bar; // The renamed member.
>> int &Bar = m_bar; // TEMPORARY alias using the old name.
>> };
>> This would have to be done sparingly and for good reason, such as
>> when the names are known across many components/subprojects and
>> doing them all at once wou...
2019 Feb 20
2
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 15:24, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:16 AM Michael Platings via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding a plan for conversion, I'm keen to avoid perfect
2015 Aug 10
3
RFC: PGO Late instrumentation for LLVM
...at the
> purpose of PGO -- hottest functions are those which need profile
> guidance the most.
>
In the program I looked at the top 1% were just trivial getters and
constructors or similar. We should already be "getting these right".
Stuff like:
class Foo {
....
Foo(int bar) : m_bar(bar) {}
int getBar() { return m_bar; }
...
};
Are the results different for your codebases? Have you tried something like
simply not instrumenting the hottest 1% or 0.5% of functions? (maybe
restrict the instrumentation skipping to functions of just a single BB with
less than, say, 10 instructions...
2015 Aug 08
2
RFC: PGO Late instrumentation for LLVM
Accidentally sent to uiuc server.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you compare your results with another approach: simply do not
> instrument the top 1% hottest functions (by function entry count)? If this
> simple approach provides most of the benefits (my measurements on one
> codebase I tested show that it would eliminate