[llvm-dev] Move InlineCost.cpp out of Analysis?

[Easwaran Raman via llvm-dev]

Thanks for the comments.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

>
> > 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?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
>
Yes, I meant that it is not an analysis pass. It does perform analysis. I
see one such example of something that performs analysis being added under
Transforms/Utils: CmpInstAnalysis.cpp.

>
> >
> >>
> >> 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 think that is due to ThinLTO's use of  getBlockProfileCount.

I'm not sure about ProfileData that depends on Bitcode, do you know why?
>
ProfileData (specifically CoverageMapping{Reader|Writer}) depends on Object
which depends on Bitcode.

- Easwaran


> --
> Mehdi
>
>
> >> 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
> >> InlineCost.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Easwaran
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Hal Finkel
> > Assistant Computational Scientist
> > Leadership Computing Facility
> > Argonne National Laboratory
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160418/1729d61b/attachment.html>