silvas added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15829#333902, @davidxl wrote:
> For the longer term, one possible solution is to make FE based > instrumentation only used for coverage testing which can be turned on > with -fcoverage-mapping option (currently, -fcoverage-mapping can not > be used alone and must be used together with > -fprofile-instr-generate). To summarize: > > A. Current behavior: > > ----------------------- > > 1. -fprofile-instr-generate turns on FE based instrumentation > 2. -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping turns on FE based > instrumentation and coverage mapping data generation. > 3. -fprofile-instr-use=<..> assumes profile data from FE instrumentation. > > B. Proposed new behavior: > > -------------------------------- > > 1. -fprofile-instr-generate turns on IR late instrumentation > 2. -fcoverage-mapping turns on FE instrumentation and coverage-mapping > 3. -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping result in compiler warning > 4. -fprofile-instr-use=<> will automatically determine how to use the profile > data. Very good observation that we can determine FE or IR automatically based on the input profdata. That simplifies things. > B.2) above can be done today for improved usability. I don't see how this improves usability. In fact, it is confusing because it hijacks an existing option. Also B.3 causes existing user builds to emit a warning, which is annoying. I would propose the following modification of B: C.: 1. -fprofile-instr-generate defaults to IR instrumentation (i.e. behaves exactly as before, except that it uses IR instrumentation) 2. -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping turns on frontend instrumentation and coverage. (i.e. behaves exactly as before) 3. -fprofile-instr-use=<> automatically determines which method to use All existing user workflows continue to work, except for workflows that attempt to `llvm-profdata merge` some old frontend profile data (e.g. they have checked-in to version control and represents some special workload) with the profile data from new binaries. Concretely, imagine the following workflow: clang -fprofile-instr-generate foo.c -o foo ./foo llvm-profdata merge default.profraw -o new.profdata llvm-profdata merge new.profdata /versioncontrol/some-important-but-expensive-to-reproduce-workload.profdata -o foo.profdata clang -fprofile-instr-use=foo.profdata foo.c -o foo_pgo I think this is a reasonable breakage. We would need to add a note in the release notes. Unfortunately this is not expected breakage if we claim to have forward compatibility for profdata (which IIRC Apple requires; @bogner?). But I think this case will be rare and exceptional enough that we can tolerate it: - a simple immediate workaround is to specify `-fcoverage-mapping` (which also adds some extra stuff, but works around the issue) - Presumably /versioncontrol/some-important-but-expensive-to-reproduce-workload.profdata is regenerated with some frequency which is more frequent than upgrading the compiler, and so it is likely reasonable to regenerate it alongside a compiler upgrade, using the workaround until then. > B.1) needs a > transition period before the IR based instrumentation becomes > stablized (and can be flipped to the default). During the transition > period, the behavior of 1) does not change, but a cc1 option can be > used to turn on IR instrumentation (as proposed by Sean). Just to clarify, users are not allowed to use cc1 options. The cc1 option is purely for us as compiler developers to do integration and testing, put off some discussions for later, etc. http://reviews.llvm.org/D15829 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
