minglotus-6 wrote: > > Yes there are tradeoffs to doing this purely with whole program class > > hierarchy analysis vs with profiled type info, and in fact they can be > > complementary. For example, the profile info can indicate what order to do > > the vtable comparisons (i.e. descending order of hotness, as we do for > > vfunc comparisons in current ICP), while WP CHA can be used to determine > > when no fallback is required. Also, another advantage of doing this with > > profiling is also that it does not require WP visibility, which may be > > difficult to guarantee. > > Gotcha, that makes sense. Are there plans on your side to extend this level > of value profiling/WP CHA to AutoFDO? I'm looking into trying out the WP CHA > approach on my side since it looks like there are cases it can catch in our > internal workloads.
AutoFDO support is a natural follow-up for profile-gen. I'm currently working on having more vtable comparisons with class-hierarchy-analysis and do more devirtualization with type information. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66825 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
