On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Diego Novillo <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. I don't have a strong opinion on this. Justin, how does this line up with what you were considering for our profiling options? _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
