Hi Andres, Thank you for your insight and the link offered just the context I needed!
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 1:06 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I'm doubtful this is worth the complexity - and not that we already have > plenty other places with zero length blocks. Agreed. On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 1:06 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > WRT jit_optimize_above_cost not triggering, I think we need to replace > the "basic, unoptimized" codegen path with one that does cheap > optimizations only. The reason we don't do the full optimizations all > the time is that they're expensive, but there's enough optimizations > that are pretty cheap. At some point we'll probably need our own > optimization pipeline, but I don't want to maintain that right now > (i.e. if some other people want to help with this aspect, cool)... I would absolutely love to work on this! I was thinking the same. Perhaps not only replace the default on the compile path, but also introduce additional levels. These levels could then be configured at a granularity lower than the -O0, -O1, .. In other words, perhaps we could have levels with ad-hoc pass combinations. We could then maybe have costs associated with each level. I think such a framework would be ideal. To summarize this into TODOs: 1. Tune default compilation path optimizations. 2. New costs per optimization level. 3. Capacity to define "levels" with ad-hoc pass combinations that are costing sensitive. Is this what you meant by "optimization pipeline"? -- Soumyadeep
