xur marked an inline comment as done.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:154
@@ +153,3 @@
+ assert(!CodeGenOpts.ProfileInstrumentUsePath.empty() &&
+ "Need to explicitly specify the profile name.");
+ auto ReaderOrErr = llvm::IndexedInstrProfReader::create(
----------------
silvas wrote:
> Are we ensuring consistency in the driver? If not, we definitely want to do
> that.
I think in driver level, the change change is consistent with the old behavior:
driver will always set option -fprofile-instrument-use-path= for the pgo use
compilation,
i.e. when -fprofile-instru-use{=<path>} or -fprofile-use{=<path>} is in the
command line, we will always have -fprofile-instrument-use-path=<path>,
It will be translated to CodeGenOpts.ProfileInstrumentUsePath in
ParseCodeGenArgs().
In the cc1 level, the behavior changed: old behavior is:
-fprofile-instru-use=<path> will trigger the use compilation.
Now requires two cc1 opitons:
-fprofile-instrument=clang -fprofile-instrument-use-path=<path>.
Having -fprofile-instrument=clang only will trigger the assertion and
having -fprofile-instrument-use-path=<path> is vold op.
I did this because the old pgo use cc1 option requires the profile path.
This is contrast in the IR level instrument, where
-fprofile-instrument-use-path=<path> is optional: we will use default.profdata
in the absence.
================
Comment at: lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:381
@@ +380,3 @@
+ OptSpecifier Id, DiagnosticsEngine &Diags) {
+ if (Id != OPT_fprofile_instrument_EQ && Id != OPT_fprofile_instrument_use_EQ)
+ return;
----------------
silvas wrote:
> I think it would be better to assert that it is one of the two options rather
> than silently doing nothing.
Yes. Assertion is better. Will do in the commit.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17737
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
