[llvm-dev] Proposal for O1/Og Optimization and Code Generation Pipeline

[Eric Christopher via llvm-dev]

I think this is definitely something worth investigating. It'll
increase object file size, but there's probably some tweaking we can
do as well.

Thanks both of you!

-eric

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:53 AM Cranmer, Joshua via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> A helpful intermediate for -Og would be to do the inlining anyways, but avoid actually deleting the now-unused functions.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of David Greene via llvm-dev
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:41
> To: Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Cc: Ahmed Bougacha <abougacha at apple.com>; Petr Hosek <phosek at google.com>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Proposal for O1/Og Optimization and Code Generation Pipeline
>
> Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>
> >  - Inlining: always_inline and normal inlining passes
>
> This gives me some pause.  Many a time I've been in gdb, tried to execute a method and been told "sorry, can't find this, maybe it was inlined."
>
> That said, inlining is absolutely crucial for any kind of performance with C++, so maybe this is an ok tradeoff.  Just wanted to raise the point.
>
>                       -David
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev