On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Evan Cheng <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Quentin Colombet <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Oct 24, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Quentin Colombet <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> Following the adding of the new ForceSizeOpt attribute in LLVM (see >>>>>> commit r1664220), I am making a patch for clang to set this attribute on >>>>>> each function when the Oz optimization level is set. >>>>> >>>>> Can you fix the attribute based on the code review feedback first? I'd >>>>> rather not start generating the IR when it's about to change. >>>> >>>> Hi Chandler, >>>> >>>> I am not sure to know which review you are talking about. >>>> From my understanding, according to Eli, it was ok, and according to Evan, >>>> it was ok too but may change in the future. >>>> I was not making the future happening now, if it was that you meant :). >>>> >>> >>> This is what he meant, what's the point of doing this as a short term >>> fix when the full fix is both a) not much more work and b) there are >>> objections to the existing patch? >> >> It's not a lot of work except for getting agreement. There is no urgency to >> make the change to -Os[123] now, there are no driving forces behind it. I'd >> recommend punting it. >> >> As for the attribute name, I have no strong opinions. It's a obviously open >> to interpretation. > > I think it is important to pick the name well as we'll never be able > to get rid of it, and the name will inform people's assumptions about > how it works. > > I don't think we can be lazy about getting the design we want for the > IR's representation (including the names when they indicate that > design!) of optimization levels, because we're just going to confuse > users with mistaken assumptions and expectations. Changing the IR > isn't easy enough at this point for us to try a few things and see > what works. There is no disagreement on coming up with a good name. I just don't think we should tackle the "optimize-for-size-level" part. Ideally it's one attribute with rather than multiple attributes. i.e. optsize=1 optsize=2 optsize=3 Rather than optsize optsizeharder optsizereallyhard The former will require significant changes and it is not something we'd want Quentin to tackle at this time. For the record, -Os / -Oz do not have exact definitions. They are (intentionally?) subject to interpretation by different compilers / targets. Evan _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
