hfinkel added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157#1301991, @hfinkel wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157#1291977, @andrew.w.kaylor wrote: > > > Craig Topper also raised some concerns with me (in person, his desk is > > right by mine) about the potential effect this might have on code size. He > > tells me that IRBuilder calls are intended to always be inlined and if we > > grow the implementation of these functions too much it could lead to > > noticeable bloat. It still seems to me like it might be worthwhile for the > > simplification it would allow in the front end, but I'm not really a front > > end guy so I definitely agree that we should get some input from front end > > people about what they want. > > > Craig's right about not wanting to bloat the inlinable functions in > IRBuilder, but this is something that we can measure. In addition, we might > be able to move the "slow path" (which create the constrained intrinsics) to > the .cpp file (by manually outlining to a different function). Also, to be clear, adding a mode that automatically adds these when using the existing IRBuilder functions seems worth investigating. It seems like that would greatly simply the FE code. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
