[PATCH] D102253: [LV] Prevent vectorization with unsupported element types.

[David Sherwood via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

david-arm added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:1515
 
+  bool canVectorizeInstructionTypes(ElementCount VF) {
+    for (BasicBlock *BB : TheLoop->blocks())
----------------
fhahn wrote:
> david-arm wrote:
> > nit: Could you add a simple comment above the function before committing? Something like
> > 
> >   /// Returns true if all types found in the loop are legal to vectorize.
> > 
> > maybe?
> I think terminology used in other places is 'widening' instead of 'vectorizing' , both in the cost model and codegen. Does vectorizing here means something different? Also would be good to add a comment for the function..
I guess they're the same? I hadn't deliberately chosen the word `vectorize` over `widen` to be honest. In this case I think we specifically want to know if the target has hardware support for vector instructions involving a given type because we cannot fall back on scalarisation.

In general, is there a preference to using `Widen` instead of `Vectorize` in naming schemes and comments? It's just I do see other functions in this file use the word `Vectorize` in functions and class names so I guess it seemed natural to create functions with the word `Vectorize` in them.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D102253/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D102253