tejohnson added a comment. In D131306#4037037 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306#4037037>, @paulkirth wrote:
> @tejohnson @xur I kind of dropped the ball on these patches, but what are > your thoughts on this approach over the old(more invasive) change to the > profdata format I had prototyped before? the patch will obviously need to be > rebased, but other than that, do we see a downside to handling provenance > tracking for branch weights this way? Sorry, it looks like you were waiting on a review of the latest changes from me but I didn't get to it. I don't recall the other changes you prototyped off the top of my head - can you point me to that? But I don't have an issue with this approach as I recall it seemed cleanest at the time. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
