I'm agreed with James on all points fwiw. On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 2:00 PM James Y Knight via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> jyknight requested changes to this revision. > jyknight added a comment. > This revision now requires changes to proceed. > > In D74918#1885869 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74918#1885869>, @zoecarver > wrote: > > > @jyknight It would probably be best if we could account for CPUs who > like to use aligned pairs when getting a cache line. It's probably also > important that we don't change the value `getCPUCacheLineSize` returns, so, > if we are going to account for that, we should probably update > `getCPUCacheLineSize ` before this patch lands. > > > It would be extremely unfortunate to go to all the trouble of attempting > to return accurate results from the P0154 interfaces, and then to return an > answer insufficient to actually achieve the performance benefit it's > intended for, and then be unable to fix it due to ABI concerns. So, yes, I > do believe that this issue must be decided. > > Additionally, my opinion here has really not changed from a couple of > years ago. I continue to believe it was a mistake to standardize these > constexpr values, and that absolutely the best course of action would be to > continue to decline to implement this part of the standard, forever. (And > that GCC should similarly also continue to decline to implement it). > > That said, the list of cacheline sizes collected in this review is still > useful in any case, since it needs to be copied into LLVM's X86Subtarget to > implement the backend getCacheLineSize function. > > > Repository: > rG LLVM Github Monorepo > > CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION > https://reviews.llvm.org/D74918/new/ > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D74918 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
