In D133860#4303529, @efriedma wrote:

Did the review comments here ever get addressed?

LGTM.
Thanks for this work. It's glad to see this infrastructure works well.
Looking forward to discovering reasonable heuristics :-D
Don't forget to resolve the comment.

LGTM.
Thanks for the job.

In D133860#3796726, @efriedma wrote:

Do we care that the backend might not choose to tail-call a function even if it's in tail position? The "tail" marker is a hint; depending on attributes, calling convention, etc., the backend might not actually generate a tail call.

LGTM

LGTM

LGTM :)

• fix format

• update the comment
• add missing newline

In D133860#3790200, @compnerd wrote:

What do you think of keeping the musttail variant of the test while augmenting it with the tailcall cases?

• append tail cases to musttail test

• rebase to main
• resolve reviews

• rebase to main

• rename compare to hasLowerPriority

• use iterator to decrease rehashing

• replace Calls uniptr with instance
• Fix missing option in tests

• replace Calls uniptr with instance

Thanks for the fix.
This patch works well. All MicroBenchmarks passed at the profile generation run.

update patch with arc

In D114704#3159012, @lebedev.ri wrote:

Tests?
Presumably this is default-off?

• address clang-format

• add necessary file

• remove inliner replay logic

• clean code

• clean code
• rebase to main branch

• remove comment in code

• remove comment in code

• refactor to avoid touching the existing inliner

• fix bug

• rebase to the newest main branch

In D106448#2970314, @taolq wrote:

In D106448#2941757, @lebedev.ri wrote:

The error is likely on my side, but i'm still not quite seeing it.
I don't see the point in asking yet again, so i would like to instead see an RFC at llvm-dev list.

FYI, let me put the RFC here, https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-August/152297.html
How about this one? Looking forward to your comments.

In D106448#2941757, @lebedev.ri wrote:

The error is likely on my side, but i'm still not quite seeing it.
I don't see the point in asking yet again, so i would like to instead see an RFC at llvm-dev list.

• remove duplicate code: InlineOrder

• fix clang-tidy errors

In D106448#2934696, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D106448#2934674, @taolq wrote:

• fix bugs
• add more description

I think my question is: why is the code worth it? what's the short-term plan? what's the long-term plan?
Having *so* much intentional code duplication seems counter-intuitive.

• fix bugs
• add more description

• add module inliner to opt pipeline
• TODO: remove duplicated code
• TODO: add more description

• move code to a separated file

• return const APInt&

• use const accessors to keep readability and maintainability

• add struct to represent cost-benefit pair
• remove redundant interface to return cost-benefit pair

• renaming size -> Size

• renaming

• pack one class Priority