[PATCH] D28459: Make processing @llvm.assume more efficient - Add affected values to the assumption cache

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-commits]

I think this is fine, because you want it in 4.0.

We can build the infrastructure for the next thing pretty quickly, and if
that means this lives a few months, so be it.

I have a working version of e-ssa at this point with no ir changes that i'm
testing (it uses one argument phi nodes like lcssa, and a side lookup
table).


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Hal Finkel via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> hfinkel added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28459#642239, @davide wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28459#642235, @davide wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry for the delay, Hal.
> > >  I just checked and this doesn't regress the cases your previous
> change regressed, so we should be good on that side.
> > >  I somehow share Dan's feeling that this could be solved with an
> infrastructural changes rather than caching, but I don't feel to be in a
> position to hinder progress without a concrete/implemented alternative.
> >
> >
> > For those wondering, I mean http://lists.llvm.org/
> pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20170102/416193.html
>
>
> @dberlin , @chandlerc , et al. does anyone object to me committing this
> solution at this point? I'm obviously happy to help replace it later with
> something based on an extended SSA form once we figure out how that should
> work. In the mean time, this fixes the compile-time problems, which users
> are certainly hitting, in a fairly transparent way.
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D28459
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170110/c703f81b/attachment.html>