You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
An idea I had while thinking about #135 is to move the compiler optimisation/moptimisation functionality into a data-driven perturber pass separate from c4t's compiler interface. Something like a YAML table of the form:
- name: "std-opts"precondition:
# Might need a proper boolean language for this, possibly even SQL.
- compiler: "gcc.*"opts:
- name: "0"bias: "size"# etc
- name: "outline-atomics"precondition:
- compiler: "gcc.gcc"min-version: "10"arch: "aarch64.8"
- compiler: "gcc.clang"min-version: "12"arch: "aarch64.8"flags:
- name: "outline-atomics"allow-empty: truechoices: ["moutline-atomics", "mno-outline-atomics"]
This table would either be embedded into c4t-perturb or just read from config, with an example given as part of c4t's distribution. It'd be read in by the perturber, with the other parts of c4t not bothering with it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
An idea I had while thinking about #135 is to move the compiler optimisation/moptimisation functionality into a data-driven perturber pass separate from c4t's compiler interface. Something like a YAML table of the form:
This table would either be embedded into
c4t-perturb
or just read from config, with an example given as part of c4t's distribution. It'd be read in by the perturber, with the other parts of c4t not bothering with it.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: