search for: loopoptim

Thanks for sharing this background information :). If you've got the time, I think it'd be great to check this bulleted list into docs/. I see that we don't have a Canonicalizations.rst or a LoopOptimizations.rst -- your notes look like a good starting point. Given that the pass seems to be doing the right thing from a design perspective, should it stay in tree? Since it's been off-by-default since it was introduced in 2011, I'm still in favor of removing it unless someone is actively w...

...ter if needed.  :) Philip On 03/05/2018 01:23 PM, Vedant Kumar wrote: > Thanks for sharing this background information :). If you've got the > time, I think it'd be great to check this bulleted list into docs/. I > see that we don't have a Canonicalizations.rst or a > LoopOptimizations.rst -- your notes look like a good starting point. > > Given that the pass seems to be doing the right thing from a design > perspective, should it stay in tree? Since it's been off-by-default > since it was introduced in 2011, I'm still in favor of removing it > u...

We're not actively using this, but from a design perspective I'm wondering if we should be using this or something like it.  At the moment, our various loop optimization assume mostly canonical input.  Some of the passes have been taught to deal with limited amounts of non-canonical-ism, but there's a strong code simplicity argument in favor of only handling canonical input and

Hi, I think we should remove the LoopInstSimplify pass, as it has no test coverage and no users (afaik). If you are using the pass, or think that it should stay in tree for some other reason, please let me know. Here's the patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44053 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D44053> vedant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: