[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
dnovillo at google.com
Tue Mar 24 10:17:12 PDT 2015
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Philip Reames
<listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
> Sorry, "objected" is too strong a word here. I should have said "have
> reservations about".
> My point here - which I'm not sure I expressed well - is that I'm concerned
> we're going to bog down on a controversial change rather than make progress
> on the parts we agree on. I'm not saying that we should never redefine
> things in the way your proposing, but I would like to see the parts that
> work under both schemes be addressed first. We can continue this discussion
> in parallel.
No worries. As I stated upthread, my plan is to address all the issues
bottom up, starting with the more immediately obvious (no changes for
change sake). If we can get the usefulness we are looking for out of
the current harness, then no big changes will be needed.
If we run into some brick wall down the road (say when we're doing the
profile-based inliner changes), then we'll see what other options we
More information about the llvm-dev