search for: replacedirectcallers

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "replacedirectcallers".

2013 Oct 27
2
[LLVMdev] Two questions about MergeFunctions pass
...cntions pass. While I was working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without answer. It is about merging functions itself (not comparing). First question is: Why sometimes we use RAUW and sometimes replaceDirectCallers. Would you help me with explanation how "overridability" and possibility to create aliases affects on our decision what to use RAUW or replaceDirectCallers? And the second question. There is a case when both "F" and "G" are overridable and target supports global al...
2013 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] Two questions about MergeFunctions pass
...ing on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to > find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without > answer. > > It is about merging functions itself (not comparing). > > First question is: > Why sometimes we use RAUW and sometimes replaceDirectCallers. Would you > help me with explanation how "overridability" and possibility to create > aliases affects on our decision what to use RAUW or replaceDirectCallers? > If we know that we're going to replace F with a thunk to G, and F is *not* weak, why should we ever knowingly ca...
2018 May 01
0
ThinLTO + CFI
Hi Dmitry, the direct call patch seems like a good start; however, by falling through to the F->replaceUsesExceptBlockAddr(FDecl) at the bottom of LowerTypeTestsModule::importFunction() I believe it will replace all uses of a function (for a definition outside the TU it's defined in) with the direct function reference instead of just direct calls. Also, I believe the logic for
2018 Apr 30
4
ThinLTO + CFI
Replacing direct calls to jump table entries with calls to real targets recovers most of the performance loss in my benchmark. Dealing with link order files is a bit cumbersome though: I can’t keep both, say “foo” and “foo.cfi” next to each other in link order, because if both exist, the linker reorders the jump table next to the real function. This is not what we want when the goal is to get rid
2018 May 01
0
llvm-dev Digest, Vol 167, Issue 3
Hi all, We have enabled Thin LTO and LTO for a specific target architecture. What can be the possible scopes of improvement depending on the target after we enable the basic LTO and thin LTO.? Wanted to know the possible approach we can think to see how it performs compared to a not LTO enabled case and also what all possible directions can we think to improve upon it depending on the arch. I am