[PATCH] D27518: Moving isComplex decision to TTI
Hal Finkel via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Dec 15 07:16:24 PST 2016
hfinkel added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27518#623377, @magabari wrote:
> fixed some comments.
> In my opinion we should still keep TTI as a lightweight interface which is not depended on SCEV.
> So i think that passing struct which can hold all the properties still can be better approach. Even for future enhancements for that function.
> please tell me what do you think.
If all of the information that the backend might reasonably need can be summarized in a structure, then I agree with you that using a structure is preferred. TTI is already not necessarily a "lightweight" interface (to compute unrolling preferences, for example, we just hand the backend the loop itself because there's no reasonable way that we can summarize what the backend might need).
More information about the llvm-commits