ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D105877#2924157 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D105877#2924157>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> In D105877#2923257 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D105877#2923257>, @nikic wrote: > >> I noticed that this change had a measurable impact on `O0` memory usage, >> which I wouldn't have expected >> (https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=0f9e6451a836886f39137818c4f0cfd69ae31e62&to=8a1727ba51d262365b0d9fe10fef7e50da7022cd&stat=max-rss). >> Any idea what could cause it? Some additional analysis results hanging >> around? > > CoroElide would require `Alias Analysis` and `DominatorTreeAnalysis`. Before > I didn't noticed that since CoroElide would only happen if inline happens. I > would try to add guard by optimization level for CoroElide pass. Sorry I found that CoroElide wouldn't run at O0. So the reason should be the construction for call graph as @aeubanks said. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D105877/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D105877 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
