craig.topper added a comment. In D63638#1581973 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63638#1581973>, @chandlerc wrote:
> Just to make sure we're on the same page (and sorry I didn't jump in > sooner)... > > With the old PM, *anything* that is `always_inline` *gets* `instsimplify` run > on it, even at -O0, even if you didn't want that. So using `-instsimplify` > explicitly is, IMO, not any more scary of a reliance on LLVM's behavior than > the old PM already subjected us to... > > That said, if the x86 maintainers are comfortable with *only* using the new > PM (because it has an always inliner that literally does nothing else and > thus has an absolute minimum amount of LLVM transformations applied), I > certainly don't have any objections. =D My assumption is that eventually there will only be the "new PM". So eventually we'll only be testing that PM. So I don't have any issue testing only it now. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63638/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63638 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
