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

[Michael Kuperstein via llvm-commits]

Why does it block that?

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Alexey Bataev <a.bataev at hotmail.com> wrote:

> The first option is not suitable, it blocks min/max reduction
> vectorization.
>
> Best regards,
> Alexey Bataev
>
> > 8 февр. 2017 г., в 0:09, Michael Kuperstein via Phabricator <
> reviews at reviews.llvm.org> написал(а):
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170207/f0bfbba3/attachment.html>