Currently the naming scheme is a bit funky; the specializations are named
after the original function followed by an arbitrary decimal number. This
makes it hard to debug inlined specializations of recursive functions.
With this patch I am adding ".specialized." in between of the original
name and the suffix, which is now a single increment counter.
As reported on https://reviews.llvm.org/D150375#4367861 and
following, this change causes PDT invalidation issues. Revert
it and dependent commits.
This reverts commit 0524534d5220da5ecb2cd424a46520184d2be366.
This reverts commit ced90d1ff64a89a13479a37a3b17a411a3259f9f.
This reverts commit 9f992cc9350a7f7072a6dbf018ea07142ea7a7ed.
This reverts commit 1b1232047e83b69561fd64b9547cb0a0d374473a.
To do so we have to tweak the cost model such that specialization
does not trigger excessively.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150649
Reland 877a9f9abec61f06e39f1cd872e37b828139c2d1 since D138654 (parent)
has been fixed with 9ebaf4fef4aac89d4eff08e48185d61bc893f14e and with
8f1e11c5a7d70f96943a72649daa69f152d73e90.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126455
This reverts commit 877a9f9abec61f06e39f1cd872e37b828139c2d1.
It depends on the parent revision 42c2dc401742266da3e0251b6c1ca491f4779963
which needs to be reverted as it broke some buildbots, so reverting both.
The aim of this patch is to minimize the compilation time overhead of
running Function Specialization. It is about 40% slower to run as a
standalone pass (IPSCCP + FuncSpec vs IPSCCP with FuncSpec) according
to my measurements. I compiled the llvm testsuite with NewPM-O3 + LTO
and measured single threaded [user + system] time of IPSCCP and FuncSpec
by passing the '-time-passes' option to lld. Then I compared the two
configurations in terms of Instruction Count of the total compilation
(not of the individual passes) as in https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com.
Geomean for non-LTO builds is -0.25% and LTO is -0.5% approximately.
You can find more info below:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-should-we-enable-function-specialization/61518
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126455
Small functions with size under a given threshold are not
considered for specialisaion on the presumption that they
are easy to inline. This does not apply to `noinline`
functions, though.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135862
