[llvm-dev] RFC: Add "operand bundles" to calls and invokes
Swaroop Sridhar via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Aug 20 13:16:41 PDT 2015
Looks good to me too. Thanks.
From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:55 PM
To: Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>
Cc: Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>; David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>; Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com>; Chen Li <meloli87 at gmail.com>; Russell Hadley <rhadley at microsoft.com>; Kevin Modzelewski <kmod at dropbox.com>; Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>; rudi at dropbox.com; Pat Gavlin <pagavlin at microsoft.com>; Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com>; Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Add "operand bundles" to calls and invokes
On 08/19/2015 06:09 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote:
> A high level summary of the proposal as it stands right now (from my
> perspective), after
> incorporating Philip's suggestions:
> 1. Operand bundles are a way to associate a set of SSA values with a
> call or invoke.
> 2. Operand bundles are lowered in some arbitrary bundle-tag specific
> 3. The optimizer can optimize around operand bundles with (roughly)
> the assumption that they're just extra arguments to the call /
> invoke. In particular, the optimizer does not have to assume that
> operand bundles imply any extra memory / IO effects than what is
> apparent from the call.
> 4. Through the discussion we came up with a re-ordering
> restriction we'll have to place on function calls / invokes that
> may deoptimize their caller. This is orthogonal to the operand
> bundles discussion, and will be implemented as a separate call
> Is everyone on the thread comfortable enough with the general idea
> that I can start writing patches and sending them in for review?
> -- Sanjoy
More information about the llvm-dev