On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:28 PM Xinliang David Li <xinlian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that the test coverage needs to be improved eg better check etc. > PGO is rarely run under -O0. But I agree that we should improve the test. I sent out https://reviews.llvm.org/D64029. Chanlder: could you take a look? Thanks, -Rong > > David > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:21 PM Chandler Carruth via Phabricator via > llvm-commits <llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> chandlerc added a comment. >> >> In D63155#1563275 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63155#1563275>, @xur wrote: >> >> > In D63155#1563266 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63155#1563266>, >> @chandlerc wrote: >> > >> > > I just think we also need to understand why *no other test failed*, >> and why the only test we have for doing PGO at O0 is this one and it could >> be "fixed" but such a deeply unrelated change.... >> > >> > >> > We have special code to do PGO at O0 in old pass manager. This is not >> done in the new pass manager. >> >> >> I'm not sure how this addresses my question about test coverage. >> >> >> Repository: >> rL LLVM >> >> CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D63155/new/ >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D63155 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> llvm-commits mailing list >> llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
