probinson added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404#640362, @probinson wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404#640314, @mehdi_amini wrote: > > > I don't follow: IMO if I generate a module with optnone and pipe it to `opt > > -O3` I expect no function IR to be touched. If it is not the case it is a > > bug. > > > Your opinion and expectation are not supported by the IR spec. Optnone skips > "most" optimization passes. It is not practical (or was not, at the time) to > make the -O3 pipeline behave exactly the same as the -O0 pipeline, and also > not actually necessary to support the purpose for which 'optnone' was > invented. > > If you have a goal of making 'optnone' functions use the actual -O0 pipeline, > while non-optnone functions use the optimizing pipeline, more power to you > and you will need to take up that particular design challenge with Chandler > first. Oh, maybe you are thinking of eliminating the -O0 pipeline? Because if -O0 implies optnone then it's kinda-sorta the same thing as the optimization pipeline operating on nothing but optnone functions? I'd think that would make -O0 compilations slow down, which would not be a feature. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
