[llvm] r243253 - Roll forward r243250
Hans Wennborg via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Sep 9 13:51:55 PDT 2015
Ah, I didn't realize this feeds into the inlining cost. That makes
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote:
> I guess this is because more functions are inlined.
> This patch changes (improves IMO) how the cost of GEPs is computed. If a GEP
> can be complete folded into an addressing mode, TTI reports its cost is
> zero. Therefore, the cost of a function tends to be smaller than before,
> causing more functions to be inlined and thus increasing the binary size.
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:
>> (cc'ing the new list; sorry for the duplicate email)
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote:
>> >> Author: jingyue
>> >> Date: Sun Jul 26 14:10:03 2015
>> >> New Revision: 243253
>> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=243253&view=rev
>> >> Log:
>> >> Roll forward r243250
>> >> r243250 appeared to break clang/test/Analysis/dead-store.c on one of
>> >> the build
>> >> slaves, but I couldn't reproduce this failure locally. Probably a false
>> >> positive as I saw this test was broken by r243246 or r243247 too but
>> >> passed
>> >> later without people fixing anything.
>> > This caused a 150 KB binary size increase in Chromium. Is that expected?
>> > I'm not familiar with this code, but from my reading of the change
>> > description, it sounds more like it should decrease size by folding
>> > more address computations into mov instructions?
More information about the llvm-commits