[llvm-dev] Move InlineCost.cpp out of Analysis?

[Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The difference between Analysis and Transforms is *not* about passes, but
> about what the code *does*.
>
> Code for mutating the IR should be in Transforms, and code that analyzes
> the IR without mutating it should be in Analysis. This is why, for example,
> InstructionSimplify is in Analysis -- it does not mutate the IR in any way.
>
> So I think InlineCost and similar things should stay in the Analysis
> library regardless of whether they are passes or not.
>

Is that the only criteria (IR mod or not) ? Most of the transformations
have pass specific analysis (that are not shared with other clients) --
those code stay with the transformation -- it does not make sense to move
those code in to Analysis.  For the same reason, we need to ask first if
InlineCost is intended to be a shared utility?

David



>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:14 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Easwaran Raman" <eraman at google.com>
>> >> To: "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Hal Finkel" <
>> hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Philip Reames"
>> >> <listmail at philipreames.com>, "David Li" <davidxl at google.com>
>> >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:39:49 PM
>> >> Subject: Move InlineCost.cpp out of Analysis?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> After r256521 - which removes InlineCostAnalysis class - I think
>> >> there is no strong reason for InlineCost.cpp to be part of the
>> >> Analysis library. Is it fine to make it part of TransformUtils?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Given that InlineCost is not really an analysis any longer, I think
>> this is fine.
>>
>> Isn't it? It is not a pass, but I see it as an analysis utils.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I submitted r266477 (which has now been reverted) that made Analysis
>> >> depend on ProfileData in order to obtain ProfileSummary for the
>> >> module, but there is an existing dependency of ProfileData on
>> >> Analysis (through Object and BitCode).
>>
>> The real issue is that BitCode depends on Analysis I think.
>> I'm not sure about ProfileData that depends on Bitcode, do you know why?
>>
>> --
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>> >> Moving InlineCost.cpp under
>> >> Transforms/Utils will fix this issue. There are other ways to fix
>> >> this (make Inliner.cpp get the ProfileSummary and pass it to
>> >> InlineCost, for example), but I think it makes sense to move
>> >> InlineCost.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Easwaran
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Hal Finkel
>> > Assistant Computational Scientist
>> > Leadership Computing Facility
>> > Argonne National Laboratory
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160418/4786ef46/attachment.html>