```
warning: implicit capture of 'this' with a capture default of '=' is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-this-capture]
```
Co-authored-by: Jeremy Kun <j2kun@users.noreply.github.com>
There is no good way to report detailed errors from inside
`Pass::initializeOptions` function as context may not be available at
this point and writing directly to `llvm::errs()` is not composable.
See
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87166#discussion_r1546426763
* Add error handler callback to `Pass::initializeOptions`
* Update `PassOptions::parseFromString` to support custom error stream
instead of using `llvm::errs()` directly.
* Update default `Pass::initializeOptions` implementation to propagate
error string from `parseFromString` to new error handler.
* Update `MapMemRefStorageClassPass` to report error details using new
API.
Computing the inlinling profitability can be costly due to walking the
graph when counting the number of operations.
This PR addresses that by returning early if the threshold is set to
never or always inline.
Discussion at https://discourse.llvm.org/t/inliner-cost-model/2992
This change adds a callback that reports whether inlining
of the particular call site (communicated via ResolvedCall argument)
is profitable or not. The default MLIR inliner pass behavior
is unchanged, i.e. the callback always returns true.
This callback may be used to customize the inliner behavior
based on the target specifics (like target instructions costs),
profitability of the inlining for further optimizations
(e.g. if inlining may enable loop optimizations or scalar optimizations
due to object shape propagation), optimization levels (e.g. -Os inlining
may be quite different from -Ofast inlining), etc.
One of the questions is whether the ResolvedCall entity represents
enough of the context for the custom inlining models to come up with
the profitability decision. I think we can start with this and
extend it as necessary.
---------
Co-authored-by: Mehdi Amini <joker.eph@gmail.com>
This is just code refactoring done as a preparation for adding
MLIR inliner cost model hook(s).
Related discussion: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/inliner-cost-model/2992
The logic of SCC-based MLIR inliner is separated into the Inliner
implementation. The MLIR inliner pass becomes, well, just a pass
that invokes the SCC-based MLIR inliner.
