- User Since
- Jun 6 2014, 4:30 PM (154 w, 3 d)
I'm not convinced SCEV is the best place to handle this -- by the time IR hits SCEV select A, B, B should already have been simplified to B. We do not handle "simple" patterns like br (xor C, true), label A, label B for the same reason.
Sun, May 21
Drive by comment: how about putting the FixedPoint64 in ADT and adding one or two unit tests?
Sat, May 20
Thank you for doing this!
I've only lightly read the spec, but it looks like the vector length can be controlled by writing to the ZCR_ELn registers (so, e.g. user code could make a syscall to change the vector length)? If that's accurate, I think a constant vscale is not sufficient.
Fri, May 19
lgtm with nits
Getting this out of my review queue (I'm still waiting on the "I don't see why non-determinism in the worklist order matters here." bit).
Thu, May 18
Mostly minor stuff.
Wed, May 17
Tue, May 16
Btw, this would have been okay to land without pre-commit review.
Mon, May 15
I have two more comments:
lgtm with one comment.
Sun, May 14
Sat, May 13
Fri, May 12
Overall, I think this is a really good abstraction, but given the scope of the change I'll wait for other stakeholders to chime in.
Thu, May 11
How big does the set get? Did you try using SmallDenseSet instead?
Mon, May 8
Sun, May 7
If I understand what happened, this is scary -- if clang-tidy introduces bugs like this perhaps we should think twice before checking in large mechanical changes like 273808?
Random drive by comment.
The reordering code here is reminding me of the reordering code in ImplicitNullChecks. Is there an opportunity to share code here?
Sat, May 6
I have some minor comments, but they're of the form "if *I* wrote this, this is what I'd do", and don't necessarily need to be addressed.
Wed, May 3
lgtm, but the test case change looks fishy. This change is NFC right?
Tue, May 2
The overarching idea looks fine to me, but I did not look too closely.
Mon, May 1
- address review
This looks pretty close to done.
Sun, Apr 30
The other option would be to keep LFTR aggressive (i.e. have it drop no-wrap flags if needed), but to do that only if the backedge condition is quadratic.
FYI unless advised otherwise, I plan to land
Fri, Apr 28
The behavioral change looks fine to me, but I'll have to defer to @dberlin on whether this is the right place to do make the change.
Yes, we need a VH that does not track RAUW but nulls itself out on deletion. I had a fix that I had to revert and I'm currently working on figuring out a way to reland it.
Fwiw, I'm okay with the overall direction.