[LLVMdev] Proposal for ""llvm.mem.vectorize.safelen"

[Renato Golin]

On 20 August 2014 18:24, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> Also, we should probably allow for missing access numbers, so long as everything is in order (because the optimizer might eliminate some of them). Some memory-access instructions might also have more than one access number (after GVN, vectorization, etc.), and we should allow for that.

What about inlining? Say metadata IDs 1, 2, 3 from loop 1 are inlined
onto metadata 1, 2, 3 from loop 2. You'll end up with 1, 2, 3, 1, 2,
3, what does that mean? Then, an optimization pass removes 1, 2,
leaves 3, 1, and deletes 2, 3. Does that mean they're out of order?

Inlining will probably have to learn how to re-order in every linined
to loops while still keeping the original ids on the original loops.
That will also involve adding N to the { M+1 ~ K } set that were left
after the inlining N nodes at position M.

cheers,
--renato