[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] llvm-reduce: Support exotic terminators in instructions-to-return (PR #134794)
regehr wrote: LGTM! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134794 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] llvm-reduce: Filter function based on uses before removing arguments (PR #133412)
regehr wrote: LGTM! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133412 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] llvm-reduce: Fix using call metadata in operands-to-args (PR #133422)
regehr wrote: LGTM https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133422 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] llvm-reduce: Reduce with early return of arguments (PR #133627)
regehr wrote: yeah I don't feel like we'll get interesting variants out of this one very often, but who knows. at some point it would be interesting to get a global view of which passes are providing interesting variants in practice and which ones aren't. anyhow-- LGTM, this shouldn't slow reductions down noticeably. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133627 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] llvm-reduce: Make run-ir-passes error more consistent (PR #133564)
regehr wrote: LGTM! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133564 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] llvm-reduce: Filter function based on uses before removing arguments (PR #133412)
regehr wrote: LGTM! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133412 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] llvm-reduce: Fix losing fast math flags in operands-to-args (PR #133421)
regehr wrote: LGTM https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133421 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] InlineFunction: Split inlining into predicate and apply functions (PR #134213)
regehr wrote: LGTM https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134213 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] llvm-reduce: Add new pass to inline call sites (PR #134223)
regehr wrote: in C-Reduce we had an inliner. it (and other transformations) routinely increased the code size, but in general these were worthwhile since the eventual reduced test ended up smaller than it otherwise would have. there's still a legitimate policy question here, which is whether people running reducers want things like inlining to be performed, or whether they're just purely looking to get the irrelevant junk stripped out of test cases. I went with the former thing and generally was happy with the outcomes. ymmv... https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134223 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] llvm-reduce: Add new pass to inline call sites (PR #134223)
regehr wrote: so anyway, as a reasonably heavy llvm-reduce user, I'd be happy to see this merged, but I don't have strong feelings if this ends up being the wrong thing here. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134223 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
