fhahn added a comment. This seems fine to me.
IIUC the only potential drawback with the old pass manager is that we potentially have to run the required passes unconditionally, even if we do not use them. Vedant, did you have a chance to check the impact on overall compile time? ================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/split-cold-code.c:69 + +// SPLIT: "hot-cold-split" + ---------------- Could you extend the scope of the check to include a bit more context, i.e. make sure we emit a function attribute attached to the correct function? ================ Comment at: llvm/test/Other/opt-Os-pipeline.ll:249 +; CHECK-NEXT: Hot Cold Splitting +; CHECK-NEXT: Unnamed pass: implement Pass::getPassName() ; CHECK-NEXT: FunctionPass Manager ---------------- Are we missing an implementation of getPassName in HotColdSplitting? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
