Fwd: Optimize load from aggregate stores

[Nick Lewycky]

deadal nix wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> What should I do to get this even considered ? I got very clowny codegen
> in many cases without this patch.
>
> I allow myself to forward my previous message. I would also advice for a
> better system to submit patches (use github, mount a phabricator
> somewhere, option aren't limited).

The phabricator is documented at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html . 
Unfortunately it's not hosted under the llvm.org banner yet.

The usual policy for people not looking at patches is to continue to 
ping them (reply to own mailing list post with "ping!"), week after 
week. Speaking for myself, I find that I have more things to do than I 
can remember and I rely on people pinging me about issues I've dropped. 
It's not annoying, I really value being reminded of the things I wanted 
to do. Sometimes I'm completely busy for over a month, then I want to 
circle back and review the patches that were left by the wayside, if 
only I could find them. Just keep pinging.

Nick

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *deadal nix* <deadalnix at gmail.com <mailto:deadalnix at gmail.com>>
> Date: 2014-03-22 22:40 GMT-07:00
> Subject: Optimize load from aggregate stores
> To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>
>
> I can't find the thread where this was discussed. I made a diff some
> time ago. Here is the same updated and with improved test coverage.
>
> Currently, LLVM really misoptimize aggregate load/store. This diff is a
> big improvement on that side.
>
> Amaury SECHET
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits