Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "d9766".
Did you mean:
9766
2015 Aug 17
2
Aggregate load/stores
...the solution not good
enough and stalling the process.
Things is, pretty much anything is better than nothing. Comparing any
current solution to an hypothetical nonexistant perfect solution is not
constructive. And at this stage, this is close to being disrespectful. I
have http://reviews.llvm.org/D9766 (from may) and no actionable item on it.
It was done as per feedback on previous discussion on the subject. There is
no proposal to improve the code, no proposal to do it another way, no
nothing. FROM MAY !
I'd like to get things moving here. If you guys don't give a s*** about it
because...
2015 Aug 20
2
[RFC] Aggreate load/store, proposed plan
It is pretty clear people need this. Let's get this moving.
I'll try to sum up the point that have been made and I'll try to address
them carefully.
1/ There is no good solution for large aggregates.
That is true. However, I don't think this is a reason to not address
smaller aggregates, as they appear to be needed. Realistically, the
proportion of aggregates that are very large
2015 Aug 20
3
[RFC] Aggreate load/store, proposed plan
...gt; Hi,
>
> To be sure, because the RFC below is not detailed and assume everyone
> knows about all the emails from 10 months ago,
I agree. The RFC needs to summarize the problems and the potential solutions.
> is there more to do
> than what is proposed in http://reviews.llvm.org/D9766 ?
>
> So basically the proposal is that *InstCombine*
I think that fixing this early in the optimizer makes sense (InstCombine, etc.). This seems little different from any other canonicalization problem. These direct aggregate IR values are valid IR, but not our preferred canonical form, so...
2015 Aug 17
3
Aggregate load/stores
...e process.
>>
>> Things is, pretty much anything is better than nothing. Comparing any
>> current solution to an hypothetical nonexistant perfect solution is not
>> constructive. And at this stage, this is close to being disrespectful. I
>> have http://reviews.llvm.org/D9766 (from may) and no actionable item on
>> it. It was done as per feedback on previous discussion on the subject.
>> There is no proposal to improve the code, no proposal to do it another way,
>> no nothing. FROM MAY !
>>
>> I'd like to get things moving here. If you...
2015 Aug 20
2
[RFC] Aggreate load/store, proposed plan
...C below is not detailed and assume
> > everyone
> > knows about all the emails from 10 months ago,
>
> I agree. The RFC needs to summarize the problems and the potential
> solutions.
>
> > is there more to do
> > than what is proposed in http://reviews.llvm.org/D9766 ?
> >
> > So basically the proposal is that *InstCombine*
>
> I think that fixing this early in the optimizer makes sense
> (InstCombine, etc.). This seems little different from any other
> canonicalization problem. These direct aggregate IR values are valid
> IR, but n...
2015 Aug 21
3
[RFC] Aggreate load/store, proposed plan
...> > everyone
> > > knows about all the emails from 10 months ago,
> >
> > I agree. The RFC needs to summarize the problems and the potential
> > solutions.
> >
> > > is there more to do
> > > than what is proposed in http://reviews.llvm.org/D9766 ?
> > >
> > > So basically the proposal is that *InstCombine*
> >
> > I think that fixing this early in the optimizer makes sense
> > (InstCombine, etc.). This seems little different from any other
> > canonicalization problem. These direct aggregate IR v...