phosek added a comment. In D132975#3860896 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132975#3860896>, @Amir wrote:
> In D132975#3763264 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132975#3763264>, @phosek wrote: > >> This was already on my list of build system features I'd like to implement >> and I'm glad someone else is already looking into it, thank you! I have two >> high level comments about your approach. >> >> The first one is related to the use of Clang build as the training data. I >> think that Clang build is both unnecessarily heavyweight, but also not >> particularly representative of typical workloads (most Clang users don't use >> it to build Clang). Ideally, we would give vendors the flexibility to supply >> their own training data. I'd prefer reusing the existing perf-training >> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/main/clang/utils/perf-training> >> setup to do so. In fact, I'd imagine most vendors would likely use the same >> training data for both PGO and BOLT and that use case should be supported. > > Do you happen to know any existing perf-training sets? Or is there a simple > way to create one? I'm working on a script for generating perf-training sets from Ninja-based build systems, I can contribute it to LLVM if you think it'd be useful. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132975/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132975 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
