Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "d19300".
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 realize that was the clang side.
>
> I think it's ki...
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 al...
2016 Apr 22
2
[RFC] remove the llvm.expect intrinsic
...hen yeah, moving back down to one
> representation for this sounds reasonable.
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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
>>...
2016 Apr 22
3
[RFC] remove the llvm.expect intrinsic
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Philip Reames <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.
>...
2016 Apr 22
2
[cfe-dev] [RFC] remove the llvm.expect intrinsic
...ing, 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> > wrote:
Sorry, I didn't realize that was the clang sid...