As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
This is largely NFC*, in preparation for utilizing ProfileSummaryInfo
and BranchFrequencyInfo analyses. In this patch I am only doing the
splitting for the New PM, but I can do the same for the legacy PM as
a follow-on if this looks good.
*Not NFC since for partial unrolling we lose the updates done to the
loop traversal (adding new sibling and child loops) - according to
Chandler this is not very useful for partial unrolling, but it also
means that the debugging flag -unroll-revisit-child-loops no longer
works for partial unrolling.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36157
llvm-svn: 309886
Summary:
Inlining threshold is increased by application of bonuses when the
callee has a single reachable basic block or is rich in vector
instructions. Similarly, inlining cost is reduced by applying a large
bonus when the last call to a static function is considered for
inlining. This patch disables the application of these bonuses when the
callsite or the callee is cold. The intention here is to prevent a large
cold callsite from being inlined to a non-cold caller that could prevent
the caller from being inlined. This is especially important when the
cold callsite is a last call to a static since the associated bonus is
very high.
Reviewers: chandlerc, davidxl
Subscribers: danielcdh, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35823
llvm-svn: 309441
Summary:
As written in the comments above, LastCallToStaticBonus is already applied to
the cost if Caller has only one user, so it is redundant to reapply the bonus
here.
If the only user is not a caller, TotalSecondaryCost will not be adjusted
anyway because callerWillBeRemoved is false. If there's no caller at all, we
don't need to care about TotalSecondaryCost because
inliningPreventsSomeOuterInline is false.
Reviewers: chandlerc, eraman
Reviewed By: eraman
Subscribers: haicheng, davidxl, davide, llvm-commits, mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29169
llvm-svn: 295075