[PATCH] Adding a timing option for IR parsing

[Eli Bendersky]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:

> FYI, I reverted the patch in r177695 to fix our builds. We check that
> layering violations don't get any worse in our build system.
>

Can you explain what kind of build this breaks?

I understand the layering problem, but how do we still get to measure the
time IR parsing took? Do you have plans to fix the IR Reader violation any
time soon?

A temporary workaround would be to just add the measurement flag to llc.cpp
- would anyone see a problem with that?

Eli





> Fundamentally, the existing layering problem is "worked around" but there
> being no implementation. As long as thats true, all the Support library is
> providing is a text header file. As long as it is only included into source
> files that are part of a library which will eventually get linked with the
> core library, the AsmParser library, and the BitcodeReader library, all is
> well. Including it into a source file in Support makes the layering
> violation actively worse.
>
> I think the correct solution is to do one of two things:
>
> 1) Create a new library which depends on both AsmParser and BitcodeReader
> and which can be used by opt and friends. Put IRReader here.
> 2) Fold AsmParser into the IR library (where AsmWriter already lives). Put
> IRReader into the BitcodeReader library.
>
> I thought about a third option: put both AsmParser and IRReader into the
> BitcodeReader library. But increasingly that seems like a really gross
> layering.
>
> -Chandler
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't pretend to understand the layering rules. But how can someone
>>> use IRReader without linking LLVMCore? I'm not even sure why IRReader is in
>>> Support given that it needs a context.
>>
>>
>> IRReader is the layering violation. We should fix that, and then this
>> becomes a non-problem.
>>
>> And yea, I think putting the flag in the context makes a lot of sense.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130322/b6dc9039/attachment.html>