Optimize load from aggregate stores

[deadal nix]

ping ?


2014-06-13 13:30 GMT-07:00 deadal nix <deadalnix at gmail.com>:

>
>
>
> 2014-06-12 9:25 GMT-07:00 Owen Anderson <owen at apple.com>:
>
>
>> On Jun 12, 2014, at 9:02 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On 06/12/2014 12:28 AM, Owen Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>  On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:29 PM, deadal nix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is gonna improve the situation quite a lot for all frontend that use
>> aggregate loads (arguably, that is a bad practice, but that no reason to
>> stab people in the back when they do it anyway).
>>
>>
>>  I'm not sure I agree with that statement.  If we don't think they
>> should be used, not optimizing them is a good way to discourage that.  More
>> generally, I'm concerned about how we will ever get good test coverage of
>> this code path, since we don't have any extant front ends that hit it.
>>
>> I'm joining this discussion late, but a) why are aggregate loads bad
>> practice?  Loading something like a small struct from memory with a single
>> load seems reasonable.
>>
>>
>> They are not well supported through the code generator, and introducing
>> them would add a lot of complexity.  There are better solutions already in
>> use.  The only encouraged use case for first class structs is as multiple
>> return values.
>>
>>
> Refusing a patches to improve support because something is not well
> supported is the best way to ensure they are never well supported.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140624/1deba8dd/attachment.html>