mtrofin marked 2 inline comments as done.
mtrofin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Analysis/InlineAdvisor.cpp:463
+ return getAdviceImpl(CB);
+ bool Advice = CB.getCaller() != CB.getCalledFunction() &&
+ MandatoryInliningKind::Always ==
----------------
aeubanks wrote:
> I see this check a lot, should this be handled in some common place instead?
> Like `getMandatoryKind()`?
this is the recursion avoidance test. it's separate from mandatory - I suppose
we can factor it upfront.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Analysis/MLInlineAdvisor.cpp:254
+ bool Advice)
{
+ // Make sure we track inlinings in all cases - mandatory or not.
+ if (Advice && !ForceStop)
----------------
aeubanks wrote:
> Is there a reason to track mandatory inlines? Seems like extra noise
yes, they change the stats that this inline advisor is tracking (currently nr
edges, nodes, stuff like that)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94825/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94825
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
