Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "d19299".
2016 Apr 22
2
[RFC] remove the llvm.expect intrinsic
Hi Reid -
The intent of D19299 is to remove all Clang refs to llvm.expect. Do you see
any holes after applying that patch?
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> Clang still appears to use llvm.expect. I think if you can show that it's
> trivial to update clang with a patch...
2016 Apr 22
4
[RFC] remove the llvm.expect intrinsic
I've proposed removing the llvm.expect intrinsic:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19300
The motivation for this change is in:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19299
For reference:
1. We created an intrinsic that's only reason for existing is to improve
perf, but the intrinsic can harm optimization by interfering with
transforms in other passes.
2. To solve that, we created a pass to always transform the intrinsic into
metadata at a very early stage in LL...
2016 Apr 22
3
[RFC] remove the llvm.expect intrinsic
I, of course, thought the ~100 lines added by D19299 was a reasonable trade
for the ~800 lines removed in D19300.
David Li (and anyone else following along), do you still like those patches
after hearing this objection or should I abandon?
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't re...
2016 Apr 22
3
[RFC] remove the llvm.expect intrinsic
...eames <listmail at philipreames.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 04/22/2016 09:20 AM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> I've proposed removing the llvm.expect intrinsic:
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19300
>
> The motivation for this change is in:
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19299
>
> For reference:
> 1. We created an intrinsic that's only reason for existing is to improve
> perf, but the intrinsic can harm optimization by interfering with
> transforms in other passes.
>
> I don't follow this at all. Given expects are eagerly lowered to
> met...
2016 Apr 22
2
[cfe-dev] [RFC] remove the llvm.expect intrinsic
...The test cases from Richard are broken with current lowering, but it is just bugs to be fixed.
David
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Sanjay Patel via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote:
I, of course, thought the ~100 lines added by D19299 was a reasonable trade for the ~800 lines removed in D19300.
David Li (and anyone else following along), do you still like those patches after hearing this objection or should I abandon?
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com> >...