Previously, we'd gauge suitability for inlining by counting the nodes in
a function; past a certain limit, the function was considered "too big."
Now, we also incorporate the number of times that function is called.
So if a function is called three times, and its size is 20 nodes, it
would be considered to have an inlining cost of 60 (3 * 20) instead of
20.
This should tamp down the aggressive nature of the inliner in cases like
gaussian convolution or complicated blends, and will hopefully satisfy
Pinpoint.
No change visible in Nanobench (which doesn't test any of these sorts of
patterns, but certainly inlines things): http://screen/AwD5hkgkEfjVx4g
Change-Id: Ie5e32898245ac854adb9ddd52d87001df6a67125
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/337676
Commit-Queue: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Auto-Submit: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
We now have SPIR-V golden outputs for `blend` and `shared` tests.
This exposes a handful of SPIR-V limitations for us to address.
Change-Id: Ie5278889b8a61432403d06231b17765885bee0ac
Bug: skia:10694
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/337182
Commit-Queue: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Auto-Submit: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
