Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "optmax".
2013 Jan 14
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
...y cause odd effects as you may perform
expensive optimizations later on the inlined version of bar(), even though
the original function is marked optsize.
Also, a nit-pick: can we make the naming consistent? It feels a bit weird
to have maxOPT and OPTsize. Perhaps use sizeopt and minsizeopt, or optmax
and optquick?
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>wrote:
> This has been an idea floating around in my head for a while and after
> several discussions with others it continues to hold up so I thought I
> would mail it out. Sorry for cross pos...
2013 Jan 14
4
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
...attributes. The inliner will be free to look at both the caller and the
callee's attributes to choose the best inlining decision.
>
> Also, a nit-pick: can we make the naming consistent? It feels a bit
> weird to have maxOPT and OPTsize. Perhaps use sizeopt and minsizeopt, or
> optmax and optquick?
Meh. I don't care really. It would require changing existing attributes,
but we can do that. I think the most readable structure is the first:
minsizeopt
sizeopt
quickopt
opt
maxopt
I'd like to hear some support for one or the other of these before deciding.
--------------...
2013 Jan 14
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
...y perform
> expensive optimizations later on the inlined version of bar(), even though
> the original function is marked optsize.
>
> Also, a nit-pick: can we make the naming consistent? It feels a bit
> weird to have maxOPT and OPTsize. Perhaps use sizeopt and minsizeopt, or
> optmax and optquick?
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> This has been an idea floating around in my head for a while and after
>> several discussions with others it continues to hold up so I thought I
>> would mai...
2013 Jan 14
17
[LLVMdev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
This has been an idea floating around in my head for a while and after
several discussions with others it continues to hold up so I thought I
would mail it out. Sorry for cross posting to both lists, but this is an
issue that would significantly impact both LLVM and Clang.
Essentially, LLVM provides canned optimization "levels" for frontends to
re-use. This is nothing new. However, we