similar to: [LLVMdev] Inlining into a big function

Hi Alastair, > Forgive my confusion, but I can't help notice that LangRef states: > > Globals with "linkonce" linkage are merged with other globals of the same name when linkage occurs. This is typically used to implement inline functions, templates, or other code which must be generated in each translation unit that uses it. Unreferenced linkonce globals are allowed to be

Hi Duncan- Forgive my confusion, but I can't help notice that LangRef states: Globals with "linkonce" linkage are merged with other globals of the same name when linkage occurs. This is typically used to implement inline functions, templates, or other code which must be generated in each translation unit that uses it. Unreferenced linkonce globals are allowed to be discarded. Why

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > To: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel" > <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:31:05 PM

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "via llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:54:36 PM

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The difference between Analysis and Transforms is *not* about passes, but >> about what

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I browsed the LLVM inliner implementation, and it seems there is room > for improvement.  (I have not read it too carefully, so correct me if what I > observed is wrong). > First the good side of the inliner -- the function level summary and inline > cost estimation is more elaborate and

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>>

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > The difference between Analysis and Transforms is *not* about passes, but > about what the code *does*. > > Code for mutating the IR should be in Transforms, and code that analyzes > the IR without mutating it should be in Analysis. This is why, for example, > InstructionSimplify is in

1. Summary I will implement two optimizations in the LLVM compiler, both based on runtime profile information: an inlining mechanism that takes the call frequency into consideration, and a better basic block placement algorithm. 2. The project LLVM now includes an efficient framework [1] for instrumenting an application and collecting edge and path profile information. Profile-guided

On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > Hi, I browsed the LLVM inliner implementation, and it seems there is room for improvement. (I have not read it too carefully, so correct me if what I observed is wrong). > > First the good side of the inliner -- the function level summary and inline cost estimation is more elaborate and complete than gcc. For instance, it considers

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "via llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 5:45:21 PM

Hello, In lib/Analysis/InlineCost.cpp, inlining of recursive functions is disabled because it is like loop unrolling. But - I could not find a way to have loop unrolling do the job - In the context of functionnal languages (I am implementing one), inlining small recursive functions is often a great gain My question is what is the cleanest and simplest way to inline small recursive functions ?

Hi, After r256521 - which removes InlineCostAnalysis class - I think there is no strong reason for InlineCost.cpp to be part of the Analysis library. Is it fine to make it part of TransformUtils? I submitted r266477 (which has now been reverted) that made Analysis depend on ProfileData in order to obtain ProfileSummary for the module, but there is an existing dependency of ProfileData on

Gautam Sewani wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > >> Hi, the versions of llvm-gcc and llvm you are using are >> not synchronized. Probably one is from subversion while >> the other is not. >> I've run into this, too. The problem is that the inliner pass uses a 30 bit integer to store the inline

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:09 PM, John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > Gautam Sewani wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> >>> Hi, the versions of llvm-gcc and llvm you are using are >>> not synchronized. Probably one is from subversion while >>> the other is not. >>> >

Hi, I browsed the LLVM inliner implementation, and it seems there is room for improvement. (I have not read it too carefully, so correct me if what I observed is wrong). First the good side of the inliner -- the function level summary and inline cost estimation is more elaborate and complete than gcc. For instance, it considers callsite arguments and the effects of optimization enabled by

> On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Easwaran Raman" <eraman at google.com> >> To: "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at

On 04/18/2016 04:05 PM, Easwaran Raman via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com > <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com > <mailto:eraman at google.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM,

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, the versions of llvm-gcc and llvm you are using are > not synchronized. Probably one is from subversion while > the other is not. > > Ciao, > > Duncan. > Ok, I 'synchronized' both of them, but now I am getting a different error. On running make, the output ends with the

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> In the current case at stake: the issue is that we can't make the >>