tejohnson added a comment. In D131306#4052878 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306#4052878>, @paulkirth wrote:
> In D131306#4052782 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306#4052782>, @tejohnson > wrote: > >> 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? > > It was just the last revision of this patch > https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306?vs=on&id=450448#toc. The way I handled it > before was to leave the MD_prof layout alone and use a new MD type to track > the provenance. It had the benefit of leaving the layout alone, and the > downside that //every// place that did something w/ MD_prof needed to copy > that as well. Ok, yeah, I definitely prefer it to not be a separate metadata that we need to keep in sync. I prefer this approach. >> But I don't have an issue with this approach as I recall it seemed cleanest >> at the time. > > Sounds good. I'll start work updating this then. Thanks! 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
