[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D65482: [DAGCombiner] Add an option to control whether or not to enable store merging

2019-07-30 Thread Teresa Johnson via Phabricator via lldb-commits
tejohnson accepted this revision. tejohnson added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. lgtm Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65482/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65482 ___ lldb-c

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D72624: [WIP] TargetMachine Hook for Module Metadata

2020-01-14 Thread Teresa Johnson via Phabricator via lldb-commits
tejohnson added a comment. I'm not sure if ThinLTOCodeGenerator.cpp and LTOBackend.cpp were intentionally left out due to the LTO concerns mentioned in the description? Note if we are just passing in the Module and updating the TM based on that, it wouldn't hit the threading issue I mentioned i

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D72624: [WIP] TargetMachine Hook for Module Metadata

2020-01-14 Thread Teresa Johnson via Phabricator via lldb-commits
tejohnson added a comment. In D72624#1820281 , @lenary wrote: > In D72624#1817464 , @tejohnson wrote: > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback! It has been very helpful. > > > I'm not sure if ThinLTOCodeGenerator.cpp

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D72624: [WIP] TargetMachine Hook for Module Metadata

2020-01-14 Thread Teresa Johnson via Phabricator via lldb-commits
tejohnson added a comment. In D72624#1820598 , @dblaikie wrote: > (just a general comment that this code review should be only in service of > the design discussion happening on llvm-dev - please don't approve/commit > this without closing out the design

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D72624: [WIP] TargetMachine Hook for Module Metadata

2020-01-14 Thread Teresa Johnson via Phabricator via lldb-commits
tejohnson added a comment. From an LTO perspective, this seems fine for the reasons we discussed here. I looked through the patch and have a few comments. Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp:818 + if (TM) { +TM->initializeOptionsWithModuleMetadata(*TheModule);

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D137217: [LTO][COFF] Use bitcode file names in lto native object file names.

2022-11-14 Thread Teresa Johnson via Phabricator via lldb-commits
tejohnson added a comment. The naming convention used here for COFF is actually very similar to what is done for other ThinLTO save-temps output files, which are placed at the input module locations. We may want to just do this across the board. @MaskRay wdyt? A few other questions/comments bel

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D137217: [LTO][COFF] Use bitcode file names in lto native object file names.

2022-11-14 Thread Teresa Johnson via Phabricator via lldb-commits
tejohnson added a comment. @MaskRay wondering if this is a good change to make for ELF as well, wdyt? Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp:1104 - auto AddStream = [&](size_t Task) { + auto AddStream = [&](size_t Task, Twine File) { return std::make_unique(std:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D137217: [LTO][COFF] Use bitcode file names in lto native object file names.

2022-11-16 Thread Teresa Johnson via Phabricator via lldb-commits
tejohnson added inline comments. Comment at: lld/COFF/LTO.cpp:238 + sys::path::append(path, directory, +outputFileBaseName + ".lto." + baseName); + sys::path::remove_dots(path, true); MaskRay wrote: > What if two input bitcode fi

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D137217: [LTO][COFF] Use bitcode file names in lto native object file names.

2022-11-18 Thread Teresa Johnson via Phabricator via lldb-commits
tejohnson accepted this revision. tejohnson added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. lgtm Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137217/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137217 _