mehdi_amini added a comment. In D81223#2087660 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81223#2087660>, @rcorcs wrote:
> The way I see it, with size level for LTO, we could have a different LTO > optimization pipeline for size or runtime performance. So this is the important point to settle before going on with any patch: this isn't how LTO is setup today. > For example, we could have a different tuning for inlining, vectorization, > etc. All these are covered by the function attributes already. > We could also use the size level to automatically enable optimizations such > as HotColdSplitting, MergeFunctions, etc., instead of relying on specific > enabling flags. We could also have other size-specific optimizations in the > future, such as MergeSimilarFunctions (https://reviews.llvm.org/D52896). All these could be in the LTO pipeline and driven by the attribute as well. > I believe that function attributes for size are useful for optimizing cold > functions that have been outlined by HotColdSplitting, for example. The attribute is added by the frontend and can change per translation-unit / per function though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81223/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81223 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
