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

[Hal Finkel via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

hfinkel added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28459#642265, @chandlerc wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28459#642252, @hfinkel wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> I think you should land this, at the very least for 4.0. But I'm not thrilled about it. It seems pragmatic and to address a very real set of problems, but as we've discussed several times here and elsewhere, I look forward to more principled or just less invasive approaches.
>
> Anyways, LGTM.


Thanks. To be clear, we're all on the same page here.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D28459