[PATCH] D29449: [SLP] Generalization of vectorization of CmpInst operands, NFC.

[Michael Kuperstein via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

mkuper added a comment.

> What should I do then?

Short term - maybe nothing?
Is this patch blocking anything? I understand this is part of the work to support min/max reductions, but why is it necessary? Can we go forward with that without regressing any existing cases?

Longer term - it would probably be good to try to come up with a saner, or at least, more principled way to do root selection, that also doesn't cause us to look at instructions several times. I don't think adding more ad-hoc cases (CallInst) is the way to go. I'm fairly sure we can come up with other examples like this.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D29449