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

[Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
> 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.
>>
> Yes, I meant that it is not an analysis pass. It does perform analysis. I
> see one such example of something that performs analysis being added under
> Transforms/Utils: CmpInstAnalysis.cpp.
>
>
> If CmpInstAnalysis.cpp is not mutating the IR, it shouldn't sit here in my
> opinion.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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 think that is due to ThinLTO's use of  getBlockProfileCount.
>
>
> Yeah, I know but we should find a way to break this...
>

I'm not sure how? With r265941 I moved summary creation out of the
BitcodeWriter and into a new analysis pass. However, I realized I needed to
keep the dependence on Analysis (r265945) since now the WriteBitcodePass
in BitcodeWriter invokes getAnalysis on the ModuleSummaryIndexWrapperPass.
How should that dependence be expressed, so that WriteBitcodePass ensures
that ModuleSummaryIndexWrapperPass builds the index and that
WriteBitcodePass can get access to the index?

Thanks,
Teresa


>
>
> I'm not sure about ProfileData that depends on Bitcode, do you know why?
>>
> ProfileData (specifically CoverageMapping{Reader|Writer}) depends on
> Object which depends on Bitcode.
>
>
> Some refactoring or split could help here, this does not seem desirable to
> me.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |  408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160418/a9d6a995/attachment.html>