<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 24, 2021, at 16:12, Sander De Smalen <<a href="mailto:Sander.DeSmalen@arm.com" class="">Sander.DeSmalen@arm.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hi Florian, Vineet,<br class=""><br class="">Thanks both for your input!<br class=""><br class="">From the comments here and from conversations off-list, it seems there is no objection -and perhaps even a slight preference- to use the 'Invalid' state of InstructionCost as a feature. That's probably also the easiest way forward for now, since it avoids us adding all sorts of TTI methods for legalisation that we may need to delete again later when we have a scalarization mechanism for scalable VFs.<br class=""><br class="">Assuming there is no further objection to this, we'll change our patches that are currently on Phabricator to pursue this approach instead.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Sounds good to me, thanks! Is this approach suitable for all current patches in-flight you mentioned that deal with constructs/types that are not legal with scalable vectors on AArch64?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">AFAICT those in-flight patches include some of the patches below?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D102253" class="">https://reviews.llvm.org/D102253</a></div><div class=""><a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D102394" class="">https://reviews.llvm.org/D102394</a></div><div class=""><a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D101916" class="">https://reviews.llvm.org/D101916</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Cheers,</div><div class="">Florian</div></body></html>