[PATCH] D15245: Use a higher inlining threshold for hot callees.

[Easwaran Raman via llvm-commits]

Justin and Dexon, does this patch look good or do you have any concerns?

Thanks,
Easwaran

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
wrote:

> Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
> wrote:
> >> Moving this out of the frontend to here makes sense, but I have a couple
> >> of questions.
> >>
> >> - Does this only apply when we've supplied actual profile data, or can
> >>   we hit it based off of the heuristic counts in no-profile-data mode?
> >>   If the latter, this isn't quite NFC.
> >
> > It applies only when there is profile data since entry count and maximum
> > function count come only from profile data.
> >
> >> - Can the same be done for the "cold" attribute the frontend also
> applies?
> >
> > The difference between the inlinehint and cold attributes is that the
> > latter is used not just by the inliner. For instance, branch probability
> > info. I can move it to the backend and replace all calls
> > to hasFnAttr(Attribute::Cold) with a wrapper that also returns true if
> the
> > count is below the threshold. Do you want that change to be in this
> patch?
>
> That sounds more invasive, so it probably makes sense to consider it
> separately.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20151209/b2024ee8/attachment.html>