[llvm-dev] Next steps for optimization remarks?

[Brian Gesiak via llvm-dev]

> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
> I don't object to adding some kind of filtering option, but in general it won't help. An important goal here is to provide analysis (and other) tools to users that present this information at a higher level. The users won't, and shouldn't, know exactly what kinds of messages the tools use. This is already somewhat true for llvm-opt-report, and will be even more true in the future.

Ah, I see, that makes sense. Thanks!

> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote:
>
> We desperately need a progress bar in opt-viewer.  Let me know if you want to add it otherwise I will.  I filed llvm.org/PR33522 for this.
>
> In terms of improving the performance, I am pretty sure the bottleneck is still YAML parsing so:
>
> - If PGO is used, we can have a threshold to not even emit remarks on cold code, this should dramatically improve performance, llvm.org/PR33523
> - I expect that some sort of binary encoding of YAML would speed up parsing but I haven’t researched this topic yet...

I added progress indicators in https://reviews.llvm.org/D34735, and it
seems like it takes a while for the Python scripts to read some of the
larger YAML files produced for my program. I'll try to look into
binary YAML encoding later this week.

A threshold preventing remarks from being emitted on cold code sounds
good to me as well. Hal, do you agree, or is this also something that
tools at a higher level should be responsible for ignoring?

- Brian Gesiak