anton-afanasyev marked 2 inline comments as done.
anton-afanasyev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp:1426-1431
EmitAssemblyHelper AsmHelper(Diags, HeaderOpts, CGOpts, TOpts, LOpts, M);
if (CGOpts.ExperimentalNewPassManager)
AsmHelper.EmitAssemblyWithNewPassManager(Action, std::move(OS));
else
AsmHelper.EmitAssembly(Action, std::move(OS));
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> anton-afanasyev wrote:
> > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > anton-afanasyev wrote:
> > > > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > > > anton-afanasyev wrote:
> > > > > > anton-afanasyev wrote:
> > > > > > > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > > > > > > This isn't covered by any timer; if you look in
> > > > > > > > `BackendUtil.cpp`,
> > > > > > > > `EmitAssemblyHelper` actually has
> > > > > > > > `CodeGenerationTime("codegen", "Code Generation Time")` timer.
> > > > > > > Thanks, I'm to add it.
> > > > > > Hmm, I've figured out this isn't needed: such new timer mostly
> > > > > > coincides with "Backend" timer (above). Legacy `Timer
> > > > > > CodeGenerationTime(...)` is bad example of doing right timing.
> > > > > "Mostly coincides" may not be the best way to approach fine-grained
> > > > > timings, i think? :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I have noticed this because when i looked at the produced time flame
> > > > > graph,
> > > > > there's large section in the end that is covered only by `"Backend"`
> > > > > timer,
> > > > > but nothing else. Now, i'm not going to say whether or not that extra
> > > > > section
> > > > > should or should not be within `"Backend"` timer, but it certainly
> > > > > should *also*
> > > > > be within `"codegen"` timer. Or is there no codegen time spent there?
> > > > > {F10062322}
> > > > > {F10062316}
> > > > "Mostly coincides" here means "identical" I believe, the difference is
> > > > auxiliary stuff.
> > > > Please look at `clang::EmitBackendOutput()`, `"Backend"` timer is outer
> > > > for `"codegen"` one.
> > > Then we are talking about different things using the same name.
> > > There are two distinct codegen steps:
> > > 1. clang AST -> LLVM IR codegen
> > > (after that, all the opt passes run)
> > > 2. LLVM IR -> final assembly. This happens after all the opt middle-end
> > > passes.
> > >
> > > Those are *different* codegen's.
> > Yes, and step 1 is named as "CodeGen Function" whereas step 2 is named just
> > "Backend".
> Aha. So this is what i //expected// to see, apparently:
> {F10063128} {F10063119}
> ```
> diff --git a/clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp
> b/clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp
> index 71ae8fd4fb0..d89d12612f8 100644
> --- a/clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp
> +++ b/clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp
> @@ -910,6 +910,7 @@ void EmitAssemblyHelper::EmitAssembly(BackendAction
> Action,
>
> {
> PrettyStackTraceString CrashInfo("Code generation");
> + llvm::TimeTraceScope TimeScope("BackendCodegen", StringRef(""));
> CodeGenPasses.run(*TheModule);
> }
> ```
>
> But that actually brings me to another question - what about
> `PrettyStackTraceString CrashInfo("Per-function optimization");`?
> Should that be wrapped into some section, too?
> I'm less certain here.
Ok, you've talked about `Timer CodeGenerationTime`, which corresponds to
`Backend` scope.
As for this `BackendCodegen`, adding this I would prefer to add adjacent
`"Per-function optimization"` and `"Per-module optimization passes"` together.
Repository:
rL LLVM
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58675/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58675
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
