[llvm-commits] [llvm] r70440 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/CodeGen/ include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/ include/llvm/Target/ lib/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ lib/ExecutionEngine/ lib/ExecutionEngine/Interpreter/ lib/Execu

[Evan Cheng]

On Apr 29, 2009, at 5:49 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>  
> wrote:
>> Please remove CodeGenOpt::Size. Optimizing for size is a different
>> knob from the general codegen optimization level. We place function
>> notes on function declarations that indicate a function should be
>> optimized for size.
>>
> Fine.
>
>> Also, why do we need CodeGenOpt::Default in addition to
>> CodeGenOpt::One Two, and Aggressive? How do you expect
>> CodeGenOpt::Default be used? Why not just have "None", "Default",
>> "Aggressive"?
>>
> What are these different levels going to be for? Why are we calling
> them -O1, -O2, etc.? I though that I was supposed to model them off of
> the optimization flags for llvm-gcc. I can quote you the radar if you
> wish. I'll strip out whatever you want. As long as you're comfortable
> with the fact that this is completely different from what you asked
> for, and that it's a waste of a chance to have different optimization
> levels for code gen.

Sorry if I wasn't clear before. We don't want to model after  
optimization flags of llvm-gcc. -O1, -O2, -O3, etc. runs different set  
of target independent optimizations. That's different from what we are  
trying to do here. For now, I think it's much simpler if we stick with  
"none", "default", and "aggressive", that makes it simpler for clients  
to figure out what to use.

Evan

>
> -bw
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits