> Could you expand on what you mean here? Are you saying that you got
> significantly better optimization results by doing function optimization
> early on? That'd be surprising imo?
Sorry for the ambiguity, I meant that I had observed differences in the sizes
of the bitcode files dumped.
These are the size differences that I observed (for TPCH Q1):
Without my patch:
-rw------- 1 pivotal staff 278K Feb 9 11:59 1021.0.bc
-rw------- 1 pivotal staff 249K Feb 9 11:59 1374.0.bc
-rw------- 1 pivotal staff 249K Feb 9 11:59 1375.0.bc
With my patch:
-rw------- 1 pivotal staff 245K Feb 9 11:43 88514.0.bc
-rw------- 1 pivotal staff 245K Feb 9 11:43 88515.0.bc
-rw------- 1 pivotal staff 270K Feb 9 11:43 79323.0.bc
This means that the sizes of the module when execution encountered:
if (jit_dump_bitcode)
{
char *filename;
filename = psprintf("%u.%zu.bc",
MyProcPid,
context->module_generation);
LLVMWriteBitcodeToFile(context->module, filename);
pfree(filename);
}
were smaller with my patch applied. This means there is less memory
pressure between when the functions were built and when
llvm_compile_module() is called. I don't know if the difference is practically
significant.