[PATCH] D20195: [PGO] Add flags to control IRPGO warnings.

[Sean Silva via llvm-commits]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>
wrote:

> So you do turn on pre-inlining in the experiment? Yes if preinlining is
> on, there might be mismatching issues for comdat functions. Rong has plan
> to address that -- i.e, partial privatizing comdat functions according to
> their CFG hash. In other words, for all copies of a comdat func that have
> the same inlinings (therefore same cfg hash), they will share same linkage
> name (modified from the original name).
>

Yes, that is a situation we ran into.

-- Sean Silva


>
> Rong can help you check in the patch once he reviewed it.
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Jake VanAdrighem <jvanadrighem at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Great, if possible Sean or David could you commit this for me? I don't
>> have commit access.
>>
>> As for your question. Sean and I have actually experienced warnings
>> resulting from a difference in inlining choices in different TU's but we
>> will definitely be bringing this up very soon as a separate discussion.
>> These flags were mostly to deal with `instrprof_error::unknown_function`
>> which for our use case tends to be pretty spammy but not very helpful.
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:37 PM, David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> davidxl accepted this revision.
>>> davidxl added a comment.
>>> This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
>>>
>>> lgtm.
>>>
>>> Question : do you get warnings when there is no source change? This
>>> indicates some potential bugs in compiler. If you see them, can you help
>>> file bugs?
>>>
>>>
>>> Repository:
>>>   rL LLVM
>>>
>>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D20195
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160513/543e0488/attachment.html>