[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass

Tobias Grosser tobias at grosser.es
Mon Jul 29 07:37:14 PDT 2013

On 07/29/2013 03:18 AM, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 04:42:25PM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>> Sven: In terms of making the behaviour of isl easier to understand,
>> it may make sense to fail/assert in case operands have parameters that
>> are named identical, but that refer to different pointer values.
> No, you are allowed to have different identifiers with the same name.
> I could optionally print the pointer values, but then I'd have
> to think about what to do with them when reading a textual
> representation of a set with such pointer values in them.

Yes, this is how it is today. I wondered if there is actually a need to
allow the use of different identifiers with the same name (except all 
being unnamed?). I personally do not see such a need and would prefer 
isl to assert/fail in case someone tries to do so. This may avoid 
confusions as happened here. Do you see a reason why isl should allow this?


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list