[PATCH] D84782: [PGO] Include the mem ops into the function hash.

[Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-commits]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:30 AM Hans Wennborg via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> hans added a comment.
>
> In D84782#2191429 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84782#2191429>, @yamauchi
> wrote:
>
> > In D84782#2191243 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84782#2191243>, @MaskRay
> wrote:
> >
> >> @yamauchi Do we need cd890944ad344b1b8cac58332ab11c9eec6b61e9 <
> https://reviews.llvm.org/rGcd890944ad344b1b8cac58332ab11c9eec6b61e9> and
> 3d6f53018f845e893ad34f64ff2851a2e5c3ba1d <
> https://reviews.llvm.org/rG3d6f53018f845e893ad34f64ff2851a2e5c3ba1d> in
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/release/11.x ?
> >
> > I think it'd be good to have them, if possible, though it's a latent,
> non-recent bug.
>
> They're hard to apply without 50da55a58534e9207d8d5e31c8b4b5cf0c624175 <
> https://reviews.llvm.org/rG50da55a58534e9207d8d5e31c8b4b5cf0c624175>. Do
> you think we should take that also? Or maybe this can wait since it's not a
> new bug.
>

50da55a58534e9207d8d5e31c8b4b5cf0c624175 isn't a bug fix but it's not
changing the default behavior. So, it is probably safe to take it. That
said, I'd say this can wait unless there's some immediate issue, since it's
not a new bug.


>
>
> Repository:
>   rG LLVM Github Monorepo
>
> CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
>   https://reviews.llvm.org/D84782/new/
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D84782
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20200805/3ab67c09/attachment.html>