krzysz00 wrote: To elaborate, my claim is that the table that maps stages to particular instruction classes should not exist, and that that's an awkward design that paints us into corners.
The stage numbers should be arbitrarily assigned by the user, and we can and should *infer* which classes of instructions to skip waiting on in a given stage. There might also be a need for something noop-y to declare stages or have it be some sort of token, I'm not 100% sure on the design here, but in general, I think we can get away without a table that categorizes the asyncmark-able instructions. Much of the point of asyncmark is to be an abstraction over these hardware wait counters, so I'd like to see this "stages" system continue in that vein. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/220442 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
