[PATCH] D29449: [SLP] Generalization of vectorization of CmpInst operands, NFC.
Alexey Bataev via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Feb 7 13:19:12 PST 2017
The first option is not suitable, it blocks min/max reduction vectorization.
Best regards,
Alexey Bataev
> 8 февр. 2017 г., в 0:09, Michael Kuperstein via Phabricator <reviews at reviews.llvm.org> написал(а):
>
> mkuper added a comment.
>
>> What should I do then?
>
> Short term - maybe nothing?
> Is this patch blocking anything? I understand this is part of the work to support min/max reductions, but why is it necessary? Can we go forward with that without regressing any existing cases?
>
> Longer term - it would probably be good to try to come up with a saner, or at least, more principled way to do root selection, that also doesn't cause us to look at instructions several times. I don't think adding more ad-hoc cases (CallInst) is the way to go. I'm fairly sure we can come up with other examples like this.
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D29449
>
>
>
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list