Rare project developers

[mc36 <>]

hi,

On 6/10/22 06:36, Alexander Gall wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:06:56 +0200, mc36 <> said:
>
> > hmmm..... sounds weirdo.... but what if we work around this somehow?
> > i'm thinking about making the optimizer to deal with multiple options in a 
> > final+1 round,
> > where you could list some additional compiler options....
> > so let's say, from now, you'll have to provide a new file that lists the 
> > default options
> > in the first line, but every additional live you could list additional set of 
> > options to
> > try with, and if any of those fails, then i'll try to decrease the table 
> > sizes?
>
> Actually, it seems that we could simply use one of the options (they
> both do the exact same thing) for all rounds when optimizing for
> Tofino2, since this is how the actual profiles are being compiled
> during packaging.
okk then..

> We should be using the same flags for optimization and building in
> general. 
well, for that, imho we really would need to check for multiple flags...

> The packaging has provisions to have per-profile flags, but
> currently only --disable-parse-depth-limit is used selectively for a
> few profiles, but that can also be applied in general (for Tofino1)
> without impacting the resource allocation. 
at least we hope... :) but seemingly there is that exception with gre...

> It would make sense to have
> the optimizer access the flags from the Nix expression for the RARE
> package to make sure there will be no surprises in the future.
well, with or without the parameters in file, imho it just depends on
the will... if you have any idea, please drop over the fence... :)

> I'll think about that later. Right now the situation is still simple
> and I'll just re-run the optimizer with "-DQUAD_PIPE" today (maybe
> that's also what I did the other day, I don't remember).
wait a bit... adding that multi-options stuff is no matter of time to have...
and we still can decide to just use a single set of them....

br,
cs