Yes that's already planned. On Mon, Sep 28, 2015, 5:10 PM David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Manuel Klimek via cfe-commits < > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Yep. We'll make it better by limiting the size, but trivially copyable is >> an improvement, as there are orders of magnitude more loops over small >> copyable types than over large ones. >> > > We seem to be growing repeated logic for these rules in many checks > (suggesting pass by value, loop convert, maybe others) - could we > centralize these rules somewhere so we apply consistent logic in all of > them? (& call out any necessary variation there) > > >> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 9:02 PM comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Manuel Klimek via cfe-commits >>> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> > Fix loop-convert for trivially copyable types. >>> >>> If I'm not misunderstanding the patch, "trivially copyable" by itself >>> seems like a suboptimal test. After all, "trivial" can still include >>> an expensive memcpy of a large struct. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
