[PATCH] D105545: [MergedLoadStoreMotion] Conditional store elimination

[Sjoerd Meijer via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

SjoerdMeijer added a comment.

High-level question(s) first before I dive more into the details: I was wondering if the main benefit of this is simplification of control flow? Which then probably relies on the store that is being sunk the only instruction in the block? In other words, I was wondering if this is always a good thing to do. Or can we can regress things if it's not the only instruction, or it the other path (the one that does not have the store) now has to deal with the condition?



================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/MergedLoadStoreMotion.cpp:99
+//                     <...>
+//
 //===----------------------- TODO -----------------------------------------===//
----------------
It's probably good to add some of the justification and legality considerations here, i.e. the things you added to the description of this ticket.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D105545/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D105545