search for: optbisector

& now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows setting the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). If that becomes the /only/ option (ie: LLVMContext has no default OptPassGate) then the virtual interface could be kept down in IR (though it's still a bit questionable to have those Analysis types (Loop, Region, CallGraphSCC) even declared in IR). Then the imp...

So... looking at OptBisect, I have a few thoughts: 1) what's the purpose of the virtual interface/OptPassGate? I'm guessing maybe that worked around the circular referencing in these APIs? hmm, no, I suppose that wouldn't work/be relevant here. 2) Why is OptBisector a ManagedStatic? That seems pretty antithetical to the role of LLVMContext. When/why would a user be bisecting over multiple LLVMContexts? & even then, maybe it'd be more suitable for that grouping (the scope for the bisection) to be API driven - passing the bisector into the LLVMContext ct...

On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows setting the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the passgate object management issue. It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. > > If that becomes the /only/ option (ie: LLVMContext has no default OptPassGate) then the virt...

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:32 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows setting > the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). > Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the > passgate object management issue. > It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. > > > > > If that becomes the /only/ option (ie: LLVMContext has no default...

Andrew, I would not make the caller pass the description of the IR unit. That is because it would result in the description generated every time even if OptBisect is disabled. Description generation is not very chip. Thinking on the OptBisect extension, I believe passing the units are the right choice because OptPassGates may use them to make pass skipping decisions. -Yevgeny Rouban

...: > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:32 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >     On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >      > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows setting >     the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). >     Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the >     passgate object management issue. >     It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. > >      > >      > If that becomes the /only/ option (ie:...

...Apr 2, 2018 at 11:32 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > > > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows > setting > > the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). > > Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the > > passgate object management issue. > > It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. > > > > > > > > If that b...

...to:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >  > >  >     On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >  >      > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see > it allows > setting >  >     the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). >  >     Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to > solve the >  >     passgate object management issue. >  >     It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. >  > >...

...Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> > On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >> > > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows >> setting >> > the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). >> > Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the >> > passgate object management issue. >> > It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. >> > >> > > >>...

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Vivek, > > > > Have you read the mailing list threads on this topic? I don’t believe > we’re quite ready to make the switch yet. There was a discussion last > October about what was left to be done. I’m sure it has been discussed > since then too. Here’s a link to the start of