[PATCH] D128408: [LV] Remove collectTriviallyDeadInstructions, already handled by VP DCE.
Ayal Zaks via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 29 07:27:49 PDT 2022
Ayal added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/pointer-induction.ll:39
; CHECK: pred.store.if:
-; CHECK-NEXT: [[TMP11:%.*]] = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* [[NEXT_GEP]], i64 -1
-; CHECK-NEXT: store i8 95, i8* [[TMP11]], align 1
----------------
fhahn wrote:
> Ayal wrote:
> > fhahn wrote:
> > > Ayal wrote:
> > > > Avoid sinking scalar GEP into first triangle?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps worth separating the movement of removeDeadRecipes() from the removal of collectTriviallyDeadInstructions() into separate patches, to clarify the origin of these changes.
> > > I think this change is combination of moving removeDeadRecipes and removing collectTriviallyDeadInstructions, through which we end up avoiding to sink
> > So does it make sense to first only hoist removeDeadRecipes() above mergeReplicateRegions(), and then remove collectTriviallyDeadInstructions in a separate patch, isolating any such effects?
> I can hoist `removeDeadRecipes` up separately, but moving it alone won't show any changes in the existing tests unfortunately.
> I can hoist removeDeadRecipes up separately, but moving it alone won't show any changes in the existing tests unfortunately.
So be it. Is the hoist important?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128408/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128408
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list