paulkirth added a comment. In D131306#4052782 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306#4052782>, @tejohnson wrote:
> In D131306#4037037 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306#4037037>, @paulkirth > wrote: > >> @tejohnson @xur I kind of dropped the ball on these patches, but what are >> your thoughts on this approach over the old(more invasive) change to the >> profdata format I had prototyped before? the patch will obviously need to be >> rebased, but other than that, do we see a downside to handling provenance >> tracking for branch weights this way? > > Sorry, it looks like you were waiting on a review of the latest changes from > me but I didn't get to it. I don't recall the other changes you prototyped > off the top of my head - can you point me to that? It was just the last revision of this patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306?vs=on&id=450448#toc. The way I handled it before was to leave the MD_prof layout alone and use a new MD type to track the provenance. It had the benefit of leaving the layout alone, and the downside that //every// place that did something w/ MD_prof needed to copy that as well. > But I don't have an issue with this approach as I recall it seemed cleanest > at the time. Sounds good. I'll start work updating this then. Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131306 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
