[llvm-dev] [RFC] llvm-mca: a static performance analysis tool

[Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev]

Thanks Andrea for working on this!
I’ve been willing to do this for quite some time now. Looks like procrastination was the right approach here ;).

> On Mar 2, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Andrew Trick via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> +Ahmed
> 
>> On Mar 2, 2018, at 6:42 AM, Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com <mailto:andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> There are a number of people on llvm-dev who can explain better than I how to decompile into MachineInstrs. I’m not totally opposed to checking in something that works with MCInstr, but this does run strongly contrary to the design of LLVM’s subtarget support.
>> 
>> That would be great! I would be very happy if somebody suggests how to do it (or does it for me :-)).
> 
> I know that’s it’s been done before, it’s an extremely useful technique, and work in that direction should be strongly encouraged. I don’t know the current state of in-tree support.

When Ahmed and I worked on the decompiler, we first targeted MC. Going to MI was more difficult and really wouldn’t have gotten us a lot of benefits. Instead, Ahmed pushed for directly decompiling to IR (look for dagger).

I would actually be in favor for more infrastructure in MC for this kind of things. For instance, dealing with the code layout is not something MI is good at whereas MC is perfect.

> 
> Ahmed?
> 
>> Do you think the current design (modulo the changes suggested in the review) would be acceptable to start?
> 
> I’ll let others review the patch. The fact that you have collaborators in the community is good enough for me.
> 
> -Andy
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180305/8dab2034/attachment.html>