<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com">chandlerc@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div>Yes, I truly understand that. My point is that it is still a canonicalization: depending on how the user wrote the code is silly for the opposite reason: if they wrote code with ?: or max on pentium 4, codegen should convert it to an "if" if the branch is biased.</div>
</blockquote></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div>I feel like we need a better strategy long-term. Increasingly, I'm of the opinion that as we move away from the SelectionDAG's basic block limitations, we should also move away from canonicalizing to the if-converted code.</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Yes to that, +100. :)</div><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div><br></body></html>