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:
> SjoerdMeijer wrote:
> > 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.
> Sounds like a typical case of "[[
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt | technical debt ]]".
yep, but it's been addressed
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
