mtrofin marked 2 inline comments as done. mtrofin added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/lib/Analysis/InlineAdvisor.cpp:463 + return getAdviceImpl(CB); + bool Advice = CB.getCaller() != CB.getCalledFunction() && + MandatoryInliningKind::Always == ---------------- aeubanks wrote: > mtrofin wrote: > > aeubanks wrote: > > > I see this check a lot, should this be handled in some common place > > > instead? Like `getMandatoryKind()`? > > this is the recursion avoidance test. it's separate from mandatory - I > > suppose we can factor it upfront. > We don't inline self-recursive CallBases right? Seems like we should always > get a `Never` in that case. But not super important to factor that out right > now. right - I kept going back and forth between letting advisors handle that - you could, for example, imagine one that handled recursion and tracked caller/callee to allow a max number of recursive inlinings. But also something that can be factored now, and we deal with it when we get there. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D94825/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D94825 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
