MaskRay added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/tools/opt/opt.cpp:281 +static cl::opt<bool> EnableCallGraphProfile( + "enable-call-graph-profile", cl::init(true), cl::Hidden, ---------------- zhizhouy wrote: > MaskRay wrote: > > zhizhouy wrote: > > > MaskRay wrote: > > > > If there is no strong need for tuning this, please delete the option > > > > and PassManagerBuilder::CallGraphProfile > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > I know that `-enable-npm-call-graph-profile` exists, but it seems like > > > > a temporary workaround for me. @zhizhouy @void (D62627) Is the option > > > > still used? > > > Does GNU assembler recognize .cgprofile section now? > > > > > > I think we should keep this option as long as there is still usage of > > > other than integrated assembler. > > > Does GNU assembler recognize .cgprofile section now? > > > > I don't think it will ever support this section. > > > > > I think we should keep this option as long as there is still usage of > > > other than integrated assembler. > > > > Can you give a link about the use case? > I have a link of the effort to migrate Linux kernel to integrated assembler > in ChromeOS: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1020923 > > I think they are only to migrate newer versions thus the old linux kernels > are still using GNU assembler, and all kernels are built with LLVM now. If we have to have an option, we should make both legacy pm and new pm use the same option. We should not create two cl::opt. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83013/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83013 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
