[llvm-dev] Move InlineCost.cpp out of Analysis?
Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Apr 18 14:13:58 PDT 2016
> 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 anl.gov>, "Philip Reames"
>> <listmail at philipreames.com>, "David Li" <davidxl at google.com>
>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:39:49 PM
>> Subject: Move InlineCost.cpp out of Analysis?
>> 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?
> Given that InlineCost is not really an analysis any longer, I think this is fine.
Isn't it? It is not a pass, but I see it as an analysis utils.
>> 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
>> Analysis (through Object and BitCode).
The real issue is that BitCode depends on Analysis I think.
I'm not sure about ProfileData that depends on Bitcode, do you know why?
>> Moving InlineCost.cpp under
>> Transforms/Utils will fix this issue. There are other ways to fix
>> this (make Inliner.cpp get the ProfileSummary and pass it to
>> InlineCost, for example), but I think it makes sense to move
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev