[PATCH] Inliner Enhancement

[Xinliang David Li]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:

> Hi Jiangning,
>
> AFAICT, your design considerations are sound and relevant.
>
> The "ABC problem" seems nasty. Without much thinking, could you use a lazy
> evaluation by annotating code with metadata stating the current threshold
> for that particular BB/Loop? If instead of passing through the code
> multiple times (for ABC and ABD, etc), you could memoize the info in a
> graph-like metadata, so that you could re-use partial calculations in
> future inlinings. It may not be worth it, but if reading from this metadata
> is quicker than re-calculating, that it'd at least be faster. Also, such
> metadata could (should?) be quickly discarded anyway, as after inlining,
> the costs will change.
>
> About your benchmarks, they're very promising numbers. Taking 3% code-size
> for 1.5% performance is not a bad choice.



I agree with this size/performance trade-off ;)

David



> Have you tested/benchmarked in other arches? Would be good to know at
> least on x86_64 and ARM how that goes.
>
> I'll see if I can run those same tests on ARM, at least.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
>
> REPOSITORY
>   rL LLVM
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D8408
>
> EMAIL PREFERENCES
>   http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150318/3d08cf82/attachment.html>