[PATCH] D27518: Moving isComplex decision to TTI

[Hal Finkel via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

hfinkel added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27518#623377, @magabari wrote:

> fixed some comments. 
>  In my opinion we should still keep TTI as a lightweight interface which is not depended on SCEV.
>  So i think that passing struct which can hold all the properties still can be better approach. Even for future enhancements for that function.
>  please tell me what do you think.


If all of the information that the backend might reasonably need can be summarized in a structure, then I agree with you that using a structure is preferred. TTI is already not necessarily a "lightweight" interface (to compute unrolling preferences, for example, we just hand the backend the loop itself because there's no reasonable way that we can summarize what the backend might need).


https://reviews.llvm.org/D27518