|
Revision tags: llvmorg-20.1.0, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-21-init, llvmorg-19.1.7, llvmorg-19.1.6, llvmorg-19.1.5, llvmorg-19.1.4, llvmorg-19.1.3, llvmorg-19.1.2, llvmorg-19.1.1, llvmorg-19.1.0, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-20-init, llvmorg-18.1.8, llvmorg-18.1.7, llvmorg-18.1.6, llvmorg-18.1.5, llvmorg-18.1.4, llvmorg-18.1.3, llvmorg-18.1.2, llvmorg-18.1.1, llvmorg-18.1.0, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-19-init, llvmorg-17.0.6, llvmorg-17.0.5, llvmorg-17.0.4, llvmorg-17.0.3, llvmorg-17.0.2, llvmorg-17.0.1, llvmorg-17.0.0, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-18-init, llvmorg-16.0.6, llvmorg-16.0.5, llvmorg-16.0.4, llvmorg-16.0.3, llvmorg-16.0.2, llvmorg-16.0.1, llvmorg-16.0.0, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-17-init, llvmorg-15.0.7, llvmorg-15.0.6, llvmorg-15.0.5, llvmorg-15.0.4, llvmorg-15.0.3, llvmorg-15.0.2, llvmorg-15.0.1, llvmorg-15.0.0, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-16-init, llvmorg-14.0.6, llvmorg-14.0.5, llvmorg-14.0.4, llvmorg-14.0.3, llvmorg-14.0.2, llvmorg-14.0.1 |
| #
8045bf9d |
| 23-Mar-2022 |
Alexandros Lamprineas <[email protected]> |
[FuncSpec] Support function specialization across multiple arguments.
The current implementation of Function Specialization does not allow
specializing more than one arguments per function call, whi
[FuncSpec] Support function specialization across multiple arguments.
The current implementation of Function Specialization does not allow
specializing more than one arguments per function call, which is a
limitation I am lifting with this patch.
My main challenge was to choose the most suitable ADT for storing the
specializations. We need an associative container for binding all the
actual arguments of a specialization to the function call. We also
need a consistent iteration order across executions. Lastly we want
to be able to sort the entries by Gain and reject the least profitable
ones.
MapVector fits the bill but not quite; erasing elements is expensive
and using stable_sort messes up the indices to the underlying vector.
I am therefore using the underlying vector directly after calculating
the Gain.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119880
show more ...
|