- User Since
- Apr 30 2013, 5:34 PM (216 w, 5 d)
Fri, Jun 23
Thu, Jun 22
Tue, Jun 20
Mon, Jun 19
LGTM with an inline comment
Fri, Jun 16
I'm interested into seeing this landing! However I also have concerns right now:
Thu, Jun 15
Thanks for fixing! (I'm still not the best qualified to review this)
Wed, Jun 14
(If @efriedma thinks that the fix is the right one for the provided explanation that's fine with me)
OK! Thanks both :)
If you need examples about what I'm expecting to read from a commit message (same applies to comment in the code though), you may look at these commit messages:
Missing LangRef update.
Tue, Jun 13
Sun, Jun 11
Sat, Jun 10
Fri, Jun 9
Thu, Jun 8
I'm fine either way with this patch, and @chandlerc didn't answer my last comment.
Tue, Jun 6
Interestingly I got the opposite issue recently: calling through a macro with a single format specifier was *adding* new specific in the fixit in some conditions.
(Clarification the "code" part LGTM, so as soon as Sanjoy is OK with LangRef, that's fine with me)
Mon, Jun 5
Could be useful, but that seems a bit intrusive right now (ad-hoc hooks in Module and PassManager)
Thu, Jun 1
This commit was part of the series to get rid of ThinLTOCodeGenerator. Removing this would makes the current state of the "new LTO" further away of the features exposed by ThinLTOCodeGenerator.
Thanks for splitting out a large part of the refactoring!
Wed, May 31
To expand: my current concern is that the issue spotted with "instance" of scope makes the whole mechanism entirely opaque now, I'm not longer sure what is the point of specifying it at the IR level in a target-independent way.
@t-tye you were the one mentioning some generic understanding of the code as one of the original motivation IIRC?
Tue, May 30
Mon, May 29
Sun, May 28
May 26 2017
Add a bit to GVFlags to tell ThinLTO backends which values are dead.
Indeed, looks like the buildModuleSimplificationPipeline got me confused with buildFunctionSimplificationPipeline, sorry /me -> 
Note: the plan was to tune the inliner heuristic in the compile phase differently from the thin-backends phase, but we never got to it. It is also already challenging to maintain and evolve the existing thresholds, that I'm not sure adding another "optimization goal" is sustainable.
May 25 2017
May 24 2017
May 23 2017
May 22 2017
May 19 2017
It turns out that the SrcModule in FunctionImporter is in a really inconsistent intermediate state at the point where I ran the Verifier.
May 17 2017
LGTM. See one inline comment.
May 16 2017
May 15 2017
(thanks, with this naming it looks better to me!)
Someone should take care of making sure this is also handled by the new LTO API.
I think so, but what would be nice to have a test that round-trip a a few non-standard strings (i.e. not "singlethread" or "system") through MIR and through bitcode.
Is there a MIR test?
May 14 2017
May 13 2017
May 12 2017
Most of the uses reads quite wrong since it has nothing to do with PGO. I'm not fond of this renaming right now, can we find another alternative name?
What about disabling the verification as part of the pass pipeline and just do the manual call to the verifier on loading?
The codegen-only path also does not exercise the cross-module importing.