aemerson wrote: > > Final ping. Does anyone have _objections_ to this patch? > > It seems very odd to tackle this in the always inliner, as it adds a new > concern to a fairly scoped pass. Are you sure there are no alternatives, for > instance, having a pre-AlwaysInliner pass to mark off callsites that > shouldn't be inlined, and then re-enabling them afterwards? > > Maybe a RFC would help gather more feedback and consensus?
I can see where you're coming from, we'd ideally like to not couple optimizations together. I still don't see an alternative that's any more elegant. The root cause is that we don't have an interleaved inline/optimize pattern like the main inliner. I don't think an RFC is going to yield any more than the reviewers here, but I can re-consider in future if we see more cases of this issue occur. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145613 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
