[llvm] r209386 - Override runOnMachineFunction for ARMISelDAGToDAG so that we can

[Bob Wilson]

On May 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Preparation for something bigger, basically the CGContext stuff from
>>>> another thread. The basic idea comes down to being able to link
>>>> together modules (or include in a single module) functions which
>>>> target different subtargets/subtarget features and still be able to
>>>> codegen and optimize them correctly. It's similar to some of the
>>>> function specific optimization that happened recently.
>>> 
>>> Oh, excellent! Looking forward to seeing more of that.
>> 
>> I’m concerned that this is the wrong approach. Especially as we start thinking about parallel compilation, I really think we need to be explicit about the context. We ought to be moving toward having runOnMachineFunction take a CGContext as an argument, with all the target information and other context accessible via the CGContext.  This patch seems to be further entrenching the current approach of having a single global target that is specified implicitly, not explicitly.
>> 
>> If I’ve missed some discussions that explain how this fits into the bigger picture of what we need to do, can you point me at it? If those discussions haven’t happen yet, this would be a good time to start.
> 
> This happened in the CGContext thread.
> 
> And yes, I agree, however, unless you want parallel pass managers then
> you'll _still_ need to do this. Also you still don't want to globally
> set what's legal based on a single target machine.
> 
> This is all scaffolding to make this work and is incremental.

I have not seen any discussion at all about how to move toward explicit use of CGContext. I just re-read the CGContext thread and didn’t see any discussion of that at all.

I understand we may not some incremental changes now, and that’s fine as long as we have a plan for where we’re trying to go in the longer term.

I definitely agree that we should not set what is legal based on a single target machine.  That is exactly what I’m concerned about. We need to get away from the whole idea that there is a single target machine. Your change here seems to be perpetuating that instead of fixing it.