[PATCH] D91174: [Analysis] Introduce a new InstructionCost class

[Christopher Tetreault via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ctetreau added a comment.

I suppose I'm fine with Optional<CostType> for the purpose of future-proofing. Users should be doing arithmetic on InstructionCost anyways, so there shouldn't be a ton of conversions. Maybe we can just provide operator* instead of making the user write `*(C.getCost())`.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174