@@ -1495,7 +1496,7 @@ void TimeProfilingPassesHandler::registerCallbacks(
}
void TimeProfilingPassesHandler::runBeforePass(StringRef PassID, Any IR) {
- timeTraceProfilerBegin(PassID, getIRName(IR));
+ timeTraceProfilerBegin(PassID, demangle(getIRName(IR)));
https://github.com/jamieschmeiser requested changes to this pull request.
See comments in response
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c
https://github.com/jamieschmeiser edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Trass3r updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
>From 4bbe58d6027081adfe446a09c6c837542fa196f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Hollandt
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 12:05:39 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] demangle OptFunction trace names
This improves consistency
https://github.com/jamieschmeiser approved this pull request.
LGTM, thanks
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Trass3r ready_for_review
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Trass3r (Trass3r)
Changes
This improves consistency in the trace files as other entries are demangled too.
@jamieschmeiser @An-DJ
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626.diff
4 Fi
Trass3r wrote:
Ok done
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jamieschmeiser wrote:
Thanks, I looked over things and they still look good.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jamieschmeiser wrote:
You may want to look at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90756
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-co
Trass3r wrote:
I haven't seen a Loop entry in a trace file yet.
Do we want to change it anyway?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-
Trass3r wrote:
Thank you @jamieschmeiser, how to proceed? Should I rebase? Should I apply the
clang-fornat diff (which makes things less readable IMHO)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llv
jamieschmeiser wrote:
Yes, the way to proceed is to rebase and resolve the conflicts. As far as the
formatting changes, I think you should go with what the formatter wants.
Everyone has different opinions about things like spacing, line length, etc and
will never agree. The formatter keeps
https://github.com/Trass3r updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
>From 153bb2fd38b8bb18281bd52c2a21b6e4a75f3fc8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Hollandt
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 12:05:39 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] demangle OptFunction trace names
This improves consistency
rnk wrote:
Are we sure we want this behavior? Demangling is really expensive. A user
noticed a significant (10%) compile time regression from this change. We could
skip the demangling and do it offline. It's also worth pointing out that we
have to redo this work every time we optimize the same
jamieschmeiser wrote:
@rnk It is just a convenience to make things easier to read and should be
removed if it is causing compile time issues. I just happened to see this
comment now but will be unavailable for about 2 weeks. I will take care of it
when I return (I'm not ignoring this...) If
rnk wrote:
I think I'll leave this change in and file an issue about it. A 10% compile
time regression with `-ftime-trace` isn't great, but it doesn't feel
revert-worthy.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cf
Trass3r wrote:
@jamieschmeiser ping
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jamieschmeiser wrote:
@Trass3r, sorry, I didn't realize that you were waiting on me... I had already
approved this so you can go ahead and merge it. I was just pointing you at
possibly related work that might interest you. Even if you decide to expand
this work, I would suggest delivering t
jamieschmeiser wrote:
To directly answer your question: No, deliver this. If you find loop entries
in the future, then consider expanding it. Also, the link to that here may
help others should then decide to expand this work.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
__
Trass3r wrote:
Ok thanks, I don't have commit rights, could you merge it please? :)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/jamieschmeiser closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
22 matches
Mail list logo
