Meinersbur 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))}));
----------------
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 ]]".
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
