[LLVMdev] [Proposal] Parallelize post-IPO stage.
shuxin.llvm at gmail.com
Mon Jul 15 10:24:32 PDT 2013
On 7/14/13 5:57 PM, Andrew Trick wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com
> <mailto:shuxin.llvm at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 6) Miscellaneous
>> Will partitioning degrade performance in theory. I think it
>> depends on the definition of
>> performance. If performance means execution-time, I guess it dose not.
>> However, if performance includes code-size, I think it may have some
>> negative impact.
>> Following is few scenario:
>> - constants generated by the post-IPO passes are not shared across
>> - dead func may be detected during the post-IPO stage, and they may
>> not be deleted.
> In don't know if it's feasible, but stable linker output, independent
> of the partioning, is highly desirable.
In theory, it is not possible. But I guess in practice, it is almost
> One of the most irritating performance regressions to track down
> involves different versions of the host linker. If partitioning
> decisions are thrown into the mix, this could be annoying. Is it
> possible for the final link to do a better job cleaning up?
If partition's tweaking parameter remain unchanged, the partition
should remain unchanged as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev