[llvm-dev] Correct Usage of Different Inlining Modes

[Min-Yih Hsu via llvm-dev]

I think you’re invoking clang static analyzer (https://clang-analyzer.llvm.org <https://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/> ) — a tool that is used to find bugs and I don’t think it will affect the generated IR / machine code.

I think a better way to test different inline configurations will be generating IR files using clang and play around with different `opt` (inlining) options.

-Min

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:15 AM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  I am trying to see the difference between different inlining options that llvm supports (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/analyzer/developer-docs/IPA.html). The way I invoked them was -
> 
>   clang++ -Xclang -analyzer-config -Xclang -ipa=dynamic -std=c++11 -Wall something.cc -o something (for dynamic mode)
>   clang++ -Xclang -analyzer-config -Xclang -ipa=basic -std=c++11 -Wall something.cc -o something (for basic mode)
> 
>   and so on.
> 
> However, I did't observe much difference in execution times for the runs with different inlining modes, which is making me wonder if I did this correctly? Is this the right way to use the different inlining modes? Can anyone tell me if I am missing something?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Bodhi
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20211020/8a64e812/attachment.html>