[LLVMdev] RFC: Should we have (something like) -extra-vectorizer-passes in -O2?

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Tue Oct 14 10:41:38 PDT 2014

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:

> > I think it’s generally useful to have an “extreme” level of
> > optimization without much regard for compile time, and in that
> > scenario this pipeline makes sense. But this is hardly something
> > that should happen at -O2/-Os, unless real data shows otherwise.
> Doing all this only at >= -O3 does not seem unreasonable to me.

FWIW, I think we're being overly conservative if we're relegating these to
-O3 when the total cost is 2%. That doesn't seem like the right tradeoff.

I actually agree that the set I proposed is on the aggressive end -- that
was the point -- but we have more than 2% fluctuations in the optimizers'
runtime from month to month. If we want to rip stuff out it should be
because of a principled reason that it isn't going to help the code in that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141014/4ec726eb/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list