wmi added a comment. In D86502#2245578 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502#2245578>, @hoy wrote:
> In D86502#2245460 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502#2245460>, @wmi wrote: > >>> The early instrumentation also allows the inliner to duplicate probes for >>> inlined instances. When a probe along with the other instructions of a >>> callee function are inlined into its caller function, the GUID of the >>> callee function goes with the probe. This allows samples collected on >>> inlined probes to be reported for the original callee function. >> >> Just get a question from reading the above. Suppose `A` only has one BB and >> the BB has one PseudoProbe in it. If function `A` is inlined into `B1` and >> `B2` and both `B1` and `B2` inlined into `C`, the PseudoProbe from `A` will >> have two copies in `C` both carrying GUID of `A`. How the samples collected >> from `A` inlined into `B1` inlined into `C` are categorized differently from >> `A` inlined into `B2` inlined into `C`, especially when debug information is >> not enabled (so no inline stack information in the binary)? > > This is a very good question. Inlined functions are differentiated by their > original callsites. A pseudo probe is allocated for each callsite in the > `SampleProfileProbe` pass. Nested inlining will produce a stack of pseudo > probes, similar with the Dwarf inline stack. The work is not included in the > first set of patches. Thanks, then how does the pseudo probe for a callsite after inline to represent the inline scope it covers? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
