[llvm-dev] Questions on LLVM vectorization diagnostics

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 30 August 2016 at 22:55, Saito, Hideki <hideki.saito at intel.com> wrote:
> Our thinking is that what we'd like to communicate between VecAnalysis and VecTransform
> is not simple enough to represent well in metadata form, in a long run. As such, we are currently
> going after creating an internal data structure (which eventually will become data structure of
> VectAnalysis, to be referenced from VecTransform through member functions). As I wrote before,
> since we have a need to represent a new control flow (within Analysis), this internal data structure we
> are introducing is an abstraction of Basic Block, and soon-to-come NFC patch essentially stops there.
> Next step is to add a new control flow for new optimization/functionality (that's useful enough in
> LoopVectorize.cpp). At that moment, we inevitably have to represent newly generated "instructions"
> in an abstracted way and the abstracted Basic Blocks start to diverge from underlying real Basic Blocks.
> One might call this "a shadow data-structure". Once RFC and the patches comes out, I hope enough of
> you will like the approach we are taking. We'll find out at that time.

Hi Hideki,

Thanks for sharing the roadmap, I'm curious as to how this shadow
basic block will look like. :)

cheers,
--renato