[PATCH] D27518: Moving isComplex decision to TTI

Michael Kuperstein via Phabricator via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Dec 27 10:13:04 PST 2016


mkuper added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27518#630346, @magabari wrote:

> So you are suggesting passing the SCEV of the ptr instead of the Step, right?


Yes.

> I am just trying to think if there is more interesting access patterns rather than strided access to care about,
>  which is already covered by passing the step and isStrided boolean.

Sure, but you're basically inventing a new struct to pass information that's already encapsulated in an existing one (the SCEV). This may be justified, I'm just trying to understand what's the advantage of not passing the ptr SCEV. It looks like the SCEV would be more flexible, and using it avoids introducing another way to describe the same information. I originally thought it may be problematic from the layering perspective, but Hal made me realize that's nonsense, so... :-)


https://reviews.llvm.org/D27518





More information about the llvm-commits mailing list