[llvm-dev] Redefining optnone to help LTO

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

I would prefer we introduce a new attribute for this purpose.  I 
regularly use optnone for debugging/reduction purposes or when trying to 
understand the interaction of our pass pipeline.  Having an attribute 
that tells the optimizer to ignore a function (more or less) is really 
useful, and I'd rather not loose that functionality.

Philip


On 01/11/2017 08:34 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote:
> In D28404, Mehdi wanted to use the 'optnone' attribute as a way to record
> "I was compiled with -O0" in the IR, because it seems like a good idea to
> remember that fact in an LTO compilation and there is no way to remember
> that fact currently.  A couple of people felt it might be better to have
> this idea discussed on the dev list, where it might get better exposure,
> so I'm volunteering to get that discussion started.
>
> While 'optnone' does cause lots of optimizations to bypass a function,
> exactly matching -O0 was not the motivation and never a hard requirement.
> The implementation makes a distinct effort to get close to the behavior
> of -O0, but it's not an exact match and for the intended purpose (allowing
> a given function to be un-optimized to help debugging) it worked fine.
>
> Using 'optnone' to convey -O0 to LTO is something of a redefinition, or
> at least a re-purposing, of the attribute.  To get there from here, I
> think we would need a couple of things to happen, separately from the
> minor grunt work of adding 'optnone' to function IR at -O0.
>
> 1) Update the LangRef definition of 'optnone' to reflect this intent.
> The current definition doesn't provide a motivation, and the description
> is (deliberately) a bit vague.  If we want 'optnone' to intentionally
> match -O0, that should be tightened up.
>
> 2) Make a concerted effort to teach 'optnone' to targets.  Currently
> I know the X86 target is aware of it, but I'm not so sure about others.
>
> 3) Take another look at what 'optnone' currently does *not* turn off,
> and see if there is something we can do about that.  In some cases this
> will not be practical, and we may just have to live with that.
>
> (Okay, we need 3 things to happen.)
>
> I won't say this is blocking Mehdi's work, but it would remove a
> point of contention and allow the review to proceed more smoothly.
> --paulr
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev