lebedev.ri added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/ClangCommandLineReference.rst:1953
+.. option:: -freorder-functions, -fno-reorder-functions
+
Isn't this autogenerated from `include/clang/Driver/Options.td`?
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
srhines added inline comments.
Comment at: test/Driver/function-sections.c:77
// RUN: | FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-NOUS %s
+
+// RUN: %clang -no-canonical-prefixes %s -### -fsyntax-only 2>&1\
There should ideally be a test for the default behavior
twoh updated this revision to Diff 170205.
twoh added a comment.
Remove conflict line.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34796
Files:
docs/ClangCommandLineReference.rst
include/clang/Driver/Options.td
include/clang/Frontend/CodeGenOptions.def
lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp
twoh added a comment.
@joerg Sorry but I'm not sure if I understand your question. This doesn't
pretend to honor source code order, but makes linker to place "hot" functions
under .text.hot section (There's no guarantee of ordering between functions
inside .hot.text section) while "cold" functi
joerg added a comment.
Excuse me for bring this up so late, but why do we want to make any such
promises? As in: fundamentally, LLVM IR doesn't have any order property on the
module level. I have yet so seen reasonable code where the order of functions
matters for anything but performance. I've
twoh updated this revision to Diff 170148.
twoh added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: jfb.
Rebase. Sorry I somehow missed the recent comments. I addresses @davidxl's
comment on documentation. Thanks!
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34796
Files:
docs/ClangCommandLineRe
xbolva00 added a comment.
Ping
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34796
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
davidxl added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/ClangCommandLineReference.rst:1750
+
+Add section prefixes for hot/cold functions
+
prefix or suffix? Or just leave the details out (also consider the interaction
with -ffunction-sections)?
Consider documenting:
twoh added a comment.
Friendly ping. @davidxl, I think there's no harm to make clang consistent with
gcc for compiler options, and I wonder if you have any concerns that I may
miss. Thanks!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34796
___
cfe-commits mailing l
twoh added a comment.
I think it is generally good to match what GCC does to not to confuse people.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34796
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
davidxl added a comment.
The patch itself is fine. The meta question is whether we expect this option to
be generally useful?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34796
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mail
twoh updated this revision to Diff 108967.
twoh added a comment.
Update documentation. Please let me know if I need to update other documents as
well. Thanks!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34796
Files:
docs/ClangCommandLineReference.rst
include/clang/Driver/Options.td
include/clang/Frontend/
davidxl added a comment.
The patch is missing documentation change.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34796
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
twoh added a comment.
Ping. Thanks!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34796
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
twoh created this revision.
When profile data is given, .hot/.unlikely section prefix is
added to hot/cold functions for linker to improve code locality. GCC
controls this behavior with '-f(no)-reorder-functions' flag, while LLVM
uses opt tool option '-profile-guided-section-prefix=true/false'. Th
15 matches
Mail list logo
