[PATCH] D105432: [Analysis] Add simple cost model for strict (in-order) reductions

[David Sherwood via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

david-arm marked 13 inline comments as done.
david-arm added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/TargetTransformInfo.h:1170
 
+  enum class ReductionType : uint8_t { Split, Ordered };
+
----------------
dmgreen wrote:
> sdesmalen wrote:
> > RKSimon wrote:
> > > Please can you add doxygen description comments for these?
> > nit: may I request this (and any other references to it) to be renamed to TreeWise? In my experience that's a more common term used with these kinds of reductions.
> Could we represent this by passing FastMathFlags, not a new enum? The fast math flags are what dictates in-order vs relaxed for example. And I don't believe that an integer "Ordered" reduction is ever different from a un-ordered reduction.
I guess we could do that, but the flags contain a lot more than just the reassoc flag, which is the only thing we care about here. I personally think it seems a bit more obvious to the caller what's going on if we specify the type directly. Not sure what others think?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D105432/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D105432