SjoerdMeijer marked an inline comment as done. SjoerdMeijer added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGLoopInfo.cpp:302-306 + // Imply vectorize.enable when it is not already disabled/enabled. + Args.push_back( + MDNode::get(Ctx, {MDString::get(Ctx, "llvm.loop.vectorize.enable"), + ConstantAsMetadata::get(ConstantInt::get( + llvm::Type::getInt1Ty(Ctx), 1))})); ---------------- Meinersbur wrote: > [serious] Why not reusing the `Args.push_back` code from above? I think it is > important `vectorize_predicate` and `vectorize_width` (and ever additional > property we introduce in the future) the same way. IMHO everything else > becomes more and more confusing. > I have the following in mind: > > ``` > if (Attrs.VectorizeEnable != LoopAttributes::Unspecified || > IsVectorPredicateEnabled || Attrs.VectorizeWidth > 1) { > auto AttrVal = Attrs.VectorizeEnable != LoopAttributes::Disable; > Args.push_back(..., ConstantInt::get(AttrVal)); > } > ``` > No worries, and thanks for looking again! I was a bit reluctant to touch that piece of logic (and actually thought this if-elseif was not too bad and explicit in identifying the different cases), but yeah, what you suggest make sense, so will address this soon. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69628/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69628 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits