[llvm-dev] Scalable Vector Types in IR - Next Steps?

[Graham Hunter via llvm-dev]

Hi David,

I'll need to update the reviews (and rebase). I'll do that this week.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D32530 is the key patch. The backend codegen
patches can be safely ignored, I think -- we would want better isel
patterns.

It seems there's still some discussion to be had in this thread though.

-Graham

> On 18 Mar 2019, at 17:15, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote:
> 
> "Finkel, Hal J." <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes:
> 
>> On 3/15/19 10:58 AM, David Greene wrote:
>>> Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 15:30, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>> I've talked with a number of people about this as well, and I think that
>>>>> I understand the objections. I'm happy that ARM followed through with
>>>>> the alternate set of patches. Regardless, however, unless those who had
>>>>> wished to object still wish to object, and then actually do so, we now
>>>>> clearly have a good collection of contributors actively desiring to do
>>>>> code review, and we should move forward (i.e., start committing patches
>>>>> once they're judged ready).
>>>> Let's start by closing the three flying revisions, so that people that
>>>> weren't involved in the discussion don't waste time looking at them.
>>> See the reply I just posted to Hal.  I am not sure we've made a decision
>>> to abandon the current patches.  We may in fact decide that, but I
>>> haven't seen consensus for doing so yet.  In fact I've seen the opposite
>>> -- that people want to move forward with the scalable types.
>> 
>> 
>> I agree with David. We should move forward with native support for
>> scalable types.
> 
> Graham, which patch(es) would you like to concentrate on for review
> first?  A number are marked "not for review."  Do you need to update
> them before we continue reviewing?
> 
>                        -David