kosarev abandoned this revision.
kosarev added a comment.
OK, thanks.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138#906623, @kosarev wrote:
> Hmm, according to our research such loads constitute about 18% of all loads
> under ##-O -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes## on the LLVM code base. I wonder, do
> you think it would be nice to not generate them
kosarev added a comment.
Hmm, according to our research such loads constitute about 18% of all loads
under ##-O -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes## on the LLVM code base. I wonder, do
you think it would be nice to not generate them at all? I mean, provided that
necessary changes do not add too much
hfinkel added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138#905445, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138#905184, @hfinkel wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138#904747, @rjmccall wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, if this is just for your own checking, I'd rather not take it.
> >
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138#905184, @hfinkel wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138#904747, @rjmccall wrote:
>
> > Okay, if this is just for your own checking, I'd rather not take it. It's
> > not a significant compile-time cost, but there's no reason to
hfinkel added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138#904747, @rjmccall wrote:
> Okay, if this is just for your own checking, I'd rather not take it. It's
> not a significant compile-time cost, but there's no reason to pay it at all.
In that case, can we take it? I'd rather have
rjmccall added a comment.
Okay, if this is just for your own checking, I'd rather not take it. It's not
a significant compile-time cost, but there's no reason to pay it at all.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138
___
kosarev added a comment.
Correct, they are eliminated. However, this change makes things a bit easier as
we are pursuing undecorated instructions produced by clang. Once they have
their TBAA tags, we don't need to guess if it's something trivial for the
optimizer. It shouldn't be a problem to
rjmccall added a comment.
AFAIK, this is pointless because that alloca will be trivially eliminated by
mem2reg. Am I missing something? Is this important for some sort of
consistency check?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138
kosarev created this revision.
kosarev added a project: clang.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39138
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGCXXABI.cpp
test/CodeGen/tbaa-this.cpp
Index: test/CodeGen/tbaa-this.cpp
===
---
10 matches
Mail list logo