-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.1k
Revert "[Clang][CMake] Use IRPGO instead of FE PGO for Cmake Caches (#155957)" #159367
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Revert "[Clang][CMake] Use IRPGO instead of FE PGO for Cmake Caches (#155957)" #159367
Conversation
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Paschalis Mpeis (paschalis-mpeis) ChangesThis reverts commit 7fca1f8. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159367.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/cmake/caches/PGO.cmake b/clang/cmake/caches/PGO.cmake
index d6471160037c1..15bc755d110d1 100644
--- a/clang/cmake/caches/PGO.cmake
+++ b/clang/cmake/caches/PGO.cmake
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ set(LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS "clang;lld" CACHE STRING "")
set(LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES "compiler-rt;libcxx;libcxxabi;libunwind" CACHE STRING "")
set(LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD Native CACHE STRING "")
-set(BOOTSTRAP_LLVM_BUILD_INSTRUMENTED IR CACHE BOOL "")
+set(BOOTSTRAP_LLVM_BUILD_INSTRUMENTED ON CACHE BOOL "")
set(CLANG_BOOTSTRAP_TARGETS
generate-profdata
stage2
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What exactly is the motivation for this?
Hey @boomanaiden154, Given that it breaks the On our end, once this is done it will let us move our buildbot to the production buildmaster, which sends emails/commends on similar cases (cc: @gkistanova) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The motivation for the revert needs to go in the PR description (which will become the commit description), not a comment.
I'll try and reproduce this locally on a AArch64 machine. If I can't, I'm going to need you to reproduce and send over a profile and maybe some bitcode. I'll reach out if I end up needing anything.
Hey @boomanaiden154, Thanks for the quick reply! You are right, I've updated the PR description.
I was able to run without issues with this reversal patch on top of a044d61. Given your approval, should I proceed with the merge? |
Yes. |
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/162/builds/31325 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference
|
…lvm#155957)" (llvm#159367) This reverts commit 7fca1f8. PR llvm#55957 breaks the BOLT buildbot bolt-aarch64-ubuntu-clang: https://lab.llvm.org/staging/#/builders/126 Example build: https://lab.llvm.org/staging/#/builders/126/builds/2628 > ld.lld: /home/buildbot/workspace/bolt-aarch64-ubuntu-clang/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:10194: bool llvm::LoopVectorizePass::processLoop(llvm::Loop*): Assertion `!verifyFunction(*F, &dbgs())' failed.
…lvm#155957)" (llvm#159367) This reverts commit 7fca1f8. PR llvm#55957 breaks the BOLT buildbot bolt-aarch64-ubuntu-clang: https://lab.llvm.org/staging/#/builders/126 Example build: https://lab.llvm.org/staging/#/builders/126/builds/2628 > ld.lld: /home/buildbot/workspace/bolt-aarch64-ubuntu-clang/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:10194: bool llvm::LoopVectorizePass::processLoop(llvm::Loop*): Assertion `!verifyFunction(*F, &dbgs())' failed.
This reverts commit 7fca1f8.
PR #55957 breaks the BOLT buildbot bolt-aarch64-ubuntu-clang:
https://lab.llvm.org/staging/#/builders/126
Example build:
https://lab.llvm.org/staging/#/builders/126/builds/2628