[llvm-dev] [RFC] Polly Status and Integration

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de>
wrote:

> 2017-10-14 5:03 GMT+02:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>:
> > FWIW: We hit a subset of this issue with MemorySSA (which subclasses
> value
> > for the MemoryAccess's, etc), and it was discussed as well during
> > PredicateInfo.
> >
> > NewGVN has a variant the same issue as well, where it actually creates
> > unattached (IE not in a basic block) new instructions just so it can
> analyze
> > them.
> >
> > IMHO, some nice way to make virtual forms over the instructions that
> didn't
> > require reimplementing the tons of existing functionality that works with
> > Value would be much appreciated.
> >
> > But maybe the right answer at some point is to just sit down and build
> out
> > such an infrastructure. It certainly sounds like there are enough
> clients.
>
> What would be different in such an infrastructure? IMHO the
> llvm::Value hierarchy is already relatively thin,


I think most people would disagree with "Relatively thin".
Given there have also been multiple threads in the past year with most
people not wanting non-actual-IR to derive from Value, i think you may be
in the minority here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171014/ad90acac/attachment.html>