search for: quickopt

On 1/14/2013 3:09 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > [...] This level should always produce > binaries at least as fast as quickopt, but they might be both slower to > compile. The "always" part cannot really be guaranteed or enforced. I'd state it in terms of intention, i.e. "this level is intended to produce binaries at least as fast as quickopt". Otherwise, the wording may imply that it is a...

...nlikely to be a good fit in optsize. The canonical example IMO is a vectorizer -- while it is reasonable to vectorize a loop, if the vector version might not be executed, and thus the scalar loop remains as well, then it is a poor fit for optsize. 3) Optimize quickly or '-O1' - Attribute: quickopt (this would be a new attribute) - Goal: Perform basic optimizations to improve both performance and simplicity of the code, but perform them *quickly*. This level is all about compile time, but in a holistic sense. It tries to perform basic optimizations to get reasonably efficient code, and get it...

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> writes: > minsizeopt > sizeopt > quickopt > opt > maxopt I prefer being consistent and putting "opt" at the end. I would still like something other than "opt" for the fourth one. "opt" seems too generic given the other levels. -David

...nsistent? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130114/2828bf59/attachment.html>

...ze. The canonical example IMO is a vectorizer -- while it > is reasonable to vectorize a loop, if the vector version might not be > executed, and thus the scalar loop remains as well, then it is a poor fit > for optsize. > > > 3) Optimize quickly or '-O1' > - Attribute: quickopt (this would be a new attribute) > - Goal: Perform basic optimizations to improve both performance and > simplicity of the code, but perform them *quickly*. > This level is all about compile time, but in a holistic sense. It tries to > perform basic optimizations to get reasonably effici...

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> writes: > > > minsizeopt > > sizeopt > > quickopt > > opt > > maxopt > > I prefer being consistent and putting "opt" at the end. > > I would still like something other than "opt" for the fourth one. "opt" > seems too generic given the other levels. > I agree that having just "opt&q...

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Christopher Jefferson < chris at bubblescope.net> wrote: > > 3) Optimize quickly or '-O1' > > - Attribute: quickopt (this would be a new attribute) > > - Goal: Perform basic optimizations to improve both performance and > simplicity of the code, but perform them *quickly*. > > This level is all about compile time, but in a holistic sense. It tries > to perform basic optimizations to get reasona...

...ead 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. > > > 3) Optimize quickly or '-O1' > - Attribute: quickopt (this would be a new attribute) > - Goal: Perform basic optimizations to improve both performance and simplicity of the code, but perform them *quickly*. > This level is all about compile time, but in a holistic sense. It tries to perform basic optimizations to get reasonably efficient code,...

...The canonical example IMO is a vectorizer -- while >it >is reasonable to vectorize a loop, if the vector version might not be >executed, and thus the scalar loop remains as well, then it is a poor >fit >for optsize. > > >3) Optimize quickly or '-O1' >- Attribute: quickopt (this would be a new attribute) >- Goal: Perform basic optimizations to improve both performance and >simplicity of the code, but perform them *quickly*. >This level is all about compile time, but in a holistic sense. It tries >to >perform basic optimizations to get reasonably effici...

...O is a vectorizer -- while it >> is reasonable to vectorize a loop, if the vector version might not be >> executed, and thus the scalar loop remains as well, then it is a poor fit >> for optsize. >> >> >> 3) Optimize quickly or '-O1' >> - Attribute: quickopt (this would be a new attribute) >> - Goal: Perform basic optimizations to improve both performance and >> simplicity of the code, but perform them *quickly*. >> This level is all about compile time, but in a holistic sense. It tries >> to perform basic optimizations to get r...

...fit in optsize. The canonical example IMO is a vectorizer -- while it is reasonable to vectorize a loop, if the vector version might not be executed, and thus the scalar loop remains as well, then it is a poor fit for optsize. > > > 3) Optimize quickly or '-O1' > - Attribute: quickopt (this would be a new attribute) > - Goal: Perform basic optimizations to improve both performance and simplicity of the code, but perform them *quickly*. > This level is all about compile time, but in a holistic sense. It tries to perform basic optimizations to get reasonably efficient code,...

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Kaelyn Uhrain <rikka at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > >> Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> writes: >> >> > minsizeopt >> > sizeopt >> > quickopt >> > opt >> > maxopt >> >> I prefer being consistent and putting "opt" at the end. >> >> I would still like something other than "opt" for the fourth one. "opt" >> seems too generic given the other levels. >> >...