Optimize load from aggregate stores

deadal nix deadalnix at gmail.com
Fri Jun 13 13:30:49 PDT 2014

2014-06-12 9:25 GMT-07:00 Owen Anderson <owen at apple.com>:

> On Jun 12, 2014, at 9:02 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
> wrote:
>  On 06/12/2014 12:28 AM, Owen Anderson wrote:
>  On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:29 PM, deadal nix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is gonna improve the situation quite a lot for all frontend that use
> aggregate loads (arguably, that is a bad practice, but that no reason to
> stab people in the back when they do it anyway).
>  I'm not sure I agree with that statement.  If we don't think they should
> be used, not optimizing them is a good way to discourage that.  More
> generally, I'm concerned about how we will ever get good test coverage of
> this code path, since we don't have any extant front ends that hit it.
> I'm joining this discussion late, but a) why are aggregate loads bad
> practice?  Loading something like a small struct from memory with a single
> load seems reasonable.
> They are not well supported through the code generator, and introducing
> them would add a lot of complexity.  There are better solutions already in
> use.  The only encouraged use case for first class structs is as multiple
> return values.
Refusing a patches to improve support because something is not well
supported is the best way to ensure they are never well supported.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140613/03b9db60/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-commits mailing list