wmi added a comment. In D109531#2993484 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109531#2993484>, @hoy wrote:
> In D109531#2993394 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109531#2993394>, @wmi wrote: > >> In D109531#2992721 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109531#2992721>, @hoy wrote: >> >>> In D109531#2992702 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109531#2992702>, @wenlei >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The change makes sense given instr PGO also happens for O0. But >>>> practically, if a file is being built with O0, do we care about its >>>> profile given we're not really optimizing it anyways? Functions from O0 >>>> modules are not supposed to be inlined into O1 >>>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/owners/package/1/>+ modules either. >>> >>> We probably don't care about performance for O0 build. The change is for >>> consistency, also makes the compiler happy which otherwise will complain >>> about "Pseudo-probe-based profile requires SampleProfileProbePass" for O0 >>> modules that don't have probes. >> >> The complain message is emitted in SampleProfileLoader::doInitialization. >> llvm will not run SampleProfileLoader pass for O0 module. Why there is the >> complain? > > Good question. It could happen in lto postlink which by default optimizes in > -O2 mode. More specifically, with the following command, both `cc1` and `lld` > will run in default mode, which is -O0 for cc1 and -O2 for lld. > > clang -flto 1.cpp -v -fuse-ld=lld I see. It seems a problem only exposed in monolithic lto. Could you add some comment before the change in PassBuilder.cpp? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D109531/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D109531 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
