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

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

+1 to what Chandler said here and most of his argument in the following 
thread.

Philip

On 04/18/2016 02:18 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev 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.
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:14 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev 
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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 <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > ----- Original Message -----
>     >> From: "Easwaran Raman" <eraman at google.com
>     <mailto:eraman at google.com>>
>     >> To: "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>     <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>     >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov
>     <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>, "Philip Reames"
>     >> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>>,
>     "David Li" <davidxl at google.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20160418/4bd0f9cc/attachment.html>