[llvm-dev] [RFC] IR-level Region Annotations

[Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev]

On 01/19, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev wrote:
> Now you could say that the llvm.experimental.intrinsic_a and
> llvm.experimental.intrinsic_b intrinsics are magic, and even such
> "obvious" optimizations are not allowed to happen across them; but then
> calls to these intrinsics is pretty fundamentally different from
> "normal" calls, and are probably best modeled as new instructions.
> You're going to have to do the same kind of auditing of passes either
> way, and the only extra cost of a new instruction is the extra bitcode
> reading / writing code.
It does and I think ppl should therefor take a look at the alternative
proposal send out last week [0]. The "extra bitcode reading/writing
code" [1] is mechanical and should not be an issue.

Cheers,
  Johannes

[0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109615.html
[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D29250
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170202/8b2f62cb/attachment.sig>