Re: [PATCH] Value profile based optimizations, part 1

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>]

Jan Hubicka wrote:

> > Although you have vpt.h and vpt.c, you have inserted code into profile.c
> > that has intimate knowledge of vpt. The vpt files are small. Would it
> > not be more sensible to either
> > 1) put all the vpt stuff into profile.h & profile.c
> > 2) put all the vpt stuff into vpt.h & vpt.c
> > my inclination is for #1?
>
> vpt stuff is going to grow and I would be against putting all that into
> profile.c.
>
> profile.c/h contains the routines to actually profile stuff, while vpt
> will contain optimizations that does use the data.  That split seems to
> be pretty clean to me (everything in profile.c so far is about analysis)
> Perhaps the interface and/or comment can be clarified to avoid the
> confusion.
ok, makes sense. Zdenek, there needs to be some explanetory comments
about the big picture.


> > > 	* flags.h (flag_value_histograms): Declare.
> >
> > why not flag_value_profile? you've called this value profiling after
> > all? Histogram is the implementation technique, value profiling is
> > the desired outcome. A user is more likely to understand what the
> > value-profiling means.
>
>
> -fvalue-profile would be fine with me.
> Perhaps we can also think about sanyfing the naming if -profile-arcs
> -fbranch-probabilities pair.  Perhaps by adding aliased -fprofile-gen
> -fprofile-use that is easier to remember.
makes sense too.

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
         The voices in my head said this was stupid too
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk