ellishg wrote: > > Why not use the existing `-pgo-function-entry-coverage` > > (https://discourse.llvm.org/t/instrprofiling-lightweight-instrumentation/59113/14?u=ellishg) > > LLVM flag? It takes advantage of the `llvm.instrprof.cover` intrinsic > > which has less size and runtime overhead than `llvm.instrprof.increment`. > > We do use the `-pgo-function-entry-coverage` in this PR, see > [here](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109837/files#diff-bac41c71569f27df21a843bcd74d2e604ed508afbdf141777761dfb545c5d228R666-R667). > but furthermore, we skip instrumenting the functions that are covered by > sampling PGO profile.
Oh, I missed that and your [earlier comment](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109837#discussion_r1783584037). Makes more sense, thanks! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109837 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
