[LLVMdev] LiveVariables/LiveInterval on huge functions
evan.cheng at apple.com
Mon Apr 14 15:09:46 PDT 2008
Sure, it makes sense. I'll take a look at it.
On Apr 14, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Evan Cheng wrote:
>>> This sounds like unanticipated fallout from Evan's recent tweaks
>>> of the inliner. Evan, thoughts?
>> Previously the inliner assign each basic block cost of 20. So this
>> line is simply estimating the number of caller basic blocks. My
>> tweak simply removed the number of basic blocks from the equation
>> so the cost of a callee is simply number of instructions * 5. I
>> don't think it should / would impact this case. Edwin, can you
>> revert 49061 and 48725 to see if they have any impact?
>> The -30000 cost reduction for internal function does seem excessive
> Right, so now the cost estimate of the function is much lower than
> it was before. This isn't itself a problem, but it means that the
> 30000 bonus for being called at one callsite should also be reduced
> to match, seem reasonable?
More information about the llvm-dev