aeubanks added a comment. In D91567#2403252 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91567#2403252>, @mtrofin wrote:
> In D91567#2403236 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91567#2403236>, @aeubanks wrote: > >> One thing that would be nice would be to have both inliners in the same >> CGSCC pass manager to avoid doing SCC construction twice, but that would >> require some shuffling of module/cgscc passes in ModuleInlinerWrapperPass. >> Maybe as a future cleanup. > > There's that benefit to simplifying the module with the always inliner before > doing inlining "in earnest" I was pointing earlier at: for the ML policies > work, we plan on capturing (sub)graph information. Using the same SCC would > not help because the "higher" (callers) parts of the graph would have these > mandatory inlinings not completed yet, and thus offer a less accurate picture > of the problem space. Oh I see, caller information is useful. For compile times: http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/?config=O3&stat=instructions&remote=aeubanks. The previous version of this patch (perf/npmalways) running a couple passes has some small but measurable overhead on some benchmarks, 0.5%. The version of running everything (perf/npmalways2) hugely increases compile times, almost by 50% in one case. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91567/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91567 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
