[llvm-dev] Aggregate load/stores

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

On 08/17/2015 12:13 AM, deadal nix via llvm-dev wrote:
> 2015-08-16 23:21 GMT-07:00 David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com 
> <mailto:david.majnemer at gmail.com>>:
>
>
>
>     Because a solution which doesn't generalize is not a very powerful
>     solution.  What happens when somebody says that they want to use
>     atomics + large aggregate loads and stores? Give them yet another,
>     different answer? That would mean our earlier, less general
>     answer, approach was either a bandaid (bad) or the new answer
>     requires a parallel code path in their frontend (worse).
>
>
> It is expected from atomics/volatile to work differently. That is the 
> whole point of them.
>
> A lot of optimization in InstCombine plain ignore atomic/volatile 
> load/store. That is expected.
I agree with this particular point.  If we limited the optimizer to 
treating all load and stores the same, we'd have a much weaker 
optimizer.  Treating atomic vs non-atomic FCAs differently from an 
optimization standpoint seems potentially reasonable.  I would not want 
to treat them differently from a correctness/lowering strategy 
standpoint.  (i.e. both the input and output from instcombine need to 
trigger somewhat sane results from the backend.)

Philip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150817/9d16d08d/attachment.html>