[PATCH] D20267: [LTO] Add the ability to specify a subset of passes to run
Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Sun May 15 10:57:49 PDT 2016
ruiu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: ELF/LTO.cpp:69-70
@@ -62,12 +68,4 @@
static void runLTOPasses(Module &M, TargetMachine &TM) {
- legacy::PassManager LtoPasses;
- LtoPasses.add(createTargetTransformInfoWrapperPass(TM.getTargetIRAnalysis()));
- PassManagerBuilder PMB;
- PMB.LibraryInfo = new TargetLibraryInfoImpl(Triple(TM.getTargetTriple()));
- PMB.Inliner = createFunctionInliningPass();
- PMB.VerifyInput = PMB.VerifyOutput = !Config->DisableVerify;
- PMB.LoopVectorize = true;
- PMB.SLPVectorize = true;
- PMB.OptLevel = Config->LtoO;
- PMB.populateLTOPassManager(LtoPasses);
- LtoPasses.run(M);
+
+ if (!Config->LtoNewPmPasses.empty()) {
+ // The user explicitly asked for a set of passes to be run.
----------------
davide wrote:
> ruiu wrote:
> > Can you please split the function so that you can do
> >
> > if (!Config->LtoNewPmPasses.empty())
> > runNewLtoPasses(M, TM);
> > else
> > runOldLtoPasses(M, TM);
> >
> I don't want to bikeshed, but.
> The name `runNewLtoPasses` is misleading because it doesn't capture the fact that we're running a custom pipeline. `runNewLtoCustomPasses` would be more appropriate. Or whatever you want to suggest, I'll take.
Maybe your name is better. :) My point was just to split the function.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20267
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list