[PATCH] D89566: [LV] Epilogue Vectorization with Optimal Control Flow

Florian Hahn via Phabricator via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Nov 26 01:37:52 PST 2020

fhahn added a comment.

In D89566#2417874 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89566#2417874>, @SjoerdMeijer wrote:

> Thanks for working on this, I am happy with this patch.
> The way I understand it, is that we want to make this VPlan-future-proof, not make any VPlan work more difficult than necessary. Looking at D92132 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92132>, that doesn't seemed to be the case to me. I.e., even though that patch is work-in-progress, if that patch is representative to achieve that, we don't have anything to worry about. So, I would be happy if this patch lands if we also progress D92132 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92132> (and friends). But @fhahn can correct me if I am wrong here.

The point I tried to highlight with the patch is that I think we can solve the limitations without subclassing/customising code other than the skeleton creation. In that case, I think it would be preferable to go with a more targeted approach discussed (only providing a custom ‘skeleton’ creator). I outlined the potential drawbacks I see inline, but the main one is that it encourages adding more codegen specialisations that we have to entangle again later.

As mentioned earlier, I don’t think it is worth holding things up due to VPlan, but I think if we have a clear and short path towards addressing the limitations using VPlan, we should do that and avoid broad sub classing.

I might be missing some other cases where full subclassing might be needed. I think that’s something worth further discussing before committing.

On an unrelated note, I think it would be good to have some target-independent tests for this or for some additional targets, so this gets wide coverage on the public bots (some of which might not enable the PPC target)

  rG LLVM Github Monorepo



More information about the llvm-commits mailing list