ChuanqiXu added a comment.
In D100415#2691666 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100415#2691666>, @lxfind wrote:
> @ChuanqiXu Thank you for the detailed review! Really appreciate it.
> I agree we should create a coroutine benchmark at some point, ideally some
> realistic production-code driven benchmark. We can work on that in the
> future. For this patch, it's probably not worth it to hide it behind an
> option, for two reasons: 1) it would be extremely complicated, 2) most
> parameters would end up on the frame anyway 3) this patch actually doesn't
> force parameters to be put on the frame. Before frame creation, all the
> parameters are put back to allocas, the current alloca analysis and
> optimization still applies to them. So some parameters may actually end up
> not put on the frame. So I wouldn't expect this to increase frame size in
> most cases.
>
> I will add documentation latter once the we all agree on the high-level
> idea/direction of this patch.
Thanks for the disclaimer. Although I am not familiar with many details in this
patch, the high-level idea looks good to me.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Coroutines/CoroSplit.cpp:2231
// coroutine.
struct CoroSplitLegacy : public CallGraphSCCPass {
static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid
----------------
I am not familiar with the policy in LLVM that how should we treat LegacyPass
in trunk. I mean, are we responsible to update the LegacyPassManager?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100415/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100415
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
