vsk marked an inline comment as done. vsk added a comment. > I'd prefer not adding this kind of state to PassBuilder. SplitColdCode is > soemthing that refers to the construction of one particular pipeline, not to > pipeline-building in general. It should be an argument passed down through > the build*Pipeline calls.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction being made here -- could you elaborate? Isn't enabling a pass related to pipeline-building in general? If not, I don't see how arguments to build*Pipeline //do// become related to pipeline-building in general. For context, I've modeled the addition of the SplitColdCode member to PassBuilder on PGOOpt (c.f. PGOOptions::RunProfileGen). One thing I like about this approach is that it doesn't require changing IR, or changing very many different APIs. But if it's really not reasonable, I'm happy to take another shot at it. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:1331 + Opts.SplitColdCode = + (Opts.OptimizationLevel > 0) && (Opts.OptimizeSize != 2) && + Args.hasFlag(OPT_fsplit_cold_code, OPT_fno_split_cold_code, false); ---------------- tejohnson wrote: > would it be appropriate to give a warning when being ignored? I think so, I'll add this in an update. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
