mtrofin added a comment. In D91567#2403236 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91567#2403236>, @aeubanks wrote:
> One thing that would be nice would be to have both inliners in the same CGSCC > pass manager to avoid doing SCC construction twice, but that would require > some shuffling of module/cgscc passes in ModuleInlinerWrapperPass. Maybe as a > future cleanup. There's that benefit to simplifying the module with the always inliner before doing inlining "in earnest" I was pointing earlier at: for the ML policies work, we plan on capturing (sub)graph information. Using the same SCC would not help because the "higher" (callers) parts of the graph would have these mandatory inlinings not completed yet, and thus offer a less accurate picture of the problem space. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91567/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91567 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
