On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Diego Novillo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > - I would personally prefer the intent to be explicit. The more I think > > about it the less I like one flag activating N different kinds of PGO based > > on the file type. It makes it too easy to typo a filename and get different > > (unexpected) behavior. > > OK, so you'd prefer a family of flags then? -fprofile-<kind>-use=... > > This would imply a slight asymmetry in flag names with the > instrumentation based profiles, unless we renamed -fprofile-generate > to something like -fprofile-instr-generate. But I don't think we need > to be that fussy. > > > - I dislike having flag A which changes flag B's behavior where possible to > > avoid. It makes it much harder to manipulate things through append-based > > build systems' flag management. > > My inclination was to simply use -fprofile-generate and -fprofile-use. > The -fprofile-use flag would have file type auto-detection. I agree > that we could have scenarios where -fprofile-use surprises with > unexpected behaviour. In which case, -fprofile-<kind>-use or > -fprofile-use=:kind:filename (or some other variant) could be used. > > > Diego.
Ping? Bob, Chandler, does this sound reasonable to you? I'm thinking of changing the current patch to use -fprofile-sample-use=... This partially keeps the symmetry with -fprofile-generate / -fprofile-use and avoids the autodetection logic that Chandler dislikes. Diego. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
