[llvm-dev] Redefining optnone to help LTO

[Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev]

Can you clarify what would be the semantic of this new attribute compared to optnone?

Thanks,

— 
Mehdi

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 9:43 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> I would prefer we introduce a new attribute for this purpose.  I regularly use optnone for debugging/reduction purposes or when trying to understand the interaction of our pass pipeline.  Having an attribute that tells the optimizer to ignore a function (more or less) is really useful, and I'd rather not loose that functionality.
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> On 01/11/2017 08:34 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote:
>> In D28404, Mehdi wanted to use the 'optnone' attribute as a way to record
>> "I was compiled with -O0" in the IR, because it seems like a good idea to
>> remember that fact in an LTO compilation and there is no way to remember
>> that fact currently.  A couple of people felt it might be better to have
>> this idea discussed on the dev list, where it might get better exposure,
>> so I'm volunteering to get that discussion started.
>> 
>> While 'optnone' does cause lots of optimizations to bypass a function,
>> exactly matching -O0 was not the motivation and never a hard requirement.
>> The implementation makes a distinct effort to get close to the behavior
>> of -O0, but it's not an exact match and for the intended purpose (allowing
>> a given function to be un-optimized to help debugging) it worked fine.
>> 
>> Using 'optnone' to convey -O0 to LTO is something of a redefinition, or
>> at least a re-purposing, of the attribute.  To get there from here, I
>> think we would need a couple of things to happen, separately from the
>> minor grunt work of adding 'optnone' to function IR at -O0.
>> 
>> 1) Update the LangRef definition of 'optnone' to reflect this intent.
>> The current definition doesn't provide a motivation, and the description
>> is (deliberately) a bit vague.  If we want 'optnone' to intentionally
>> match -O0, that should be tightened up.
>> 
>> 2) Make a concerted effort to teach 'optnone' to targets.  Currently
>> I know the X86 target is aware of it, but I'm not so sure about others.
>> 
>> 3) Take another look at what 'optnone' currently does *not* turn off,
>> and see if there is something we can do about that.  In some cases this
>> will not be practical, and we may just have to live with that.
>> 
>> (Okay, we need 3 things to happen.)
>> 
>> I won't say this is blocking Mehdi's work, but it would remove a
>> point of contention and allow the review to proceed more smoothly.
>> --paulr
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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