[llvm-dev] LoopVectorizer: Should the cost-model be used for legalisation?

[Florian Hahn via llvm-dev]

> On Jun 24, 2021, at 16:12, Sander De Smalen <Sander.DeSmalen at arm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Florian, Vineet,
> 
> Thanks both for your input!
> 
> From the comments here and from conversations off-list, it seems there is no objection -and perhaps even a slight preference- to use the 'Invalid' state of InstructionCost as a feature. That's probably also the easiest way forward for now, since it avoids us adding all sorts of TTI methods for legalisation that we may need to delete again later when we have a scalarization mechanism for scalable VFs.
> 
> Assuming there is no further objection to this, we'll change our patches that are currently on Phabricator to pursue this approach instead.


Sounds good to me, thanks! Is this approach suitable for all current patches in-flight you mentioned that deal with constructs/types that are not legal with scalable vectors on AArch64?

AFAICT those in-flight patches include some of the patches below?

https://reviews.llvm.org/D102253 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102253>
https://reviews.llvm.org/D102394 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102394>
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101916 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101916>

Cheers,
Florian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210701/83f6ebbc/attachment.html>