yxsamliu wrote: > > > I'll look at the changes tomorrow, at first glance it looks good though. > > > Could you confirm this is the latest benchmark run? > > > [dtcxzyw/llvm-opt-benchmark#3520](https://github.com/dtcxzyw/llvm-opt-benchmark/pull/3520). > > > Looks like really good improvements! > > > > > > That one is pretty close but I made some minor changes after that but > > forgot to trigger a new run. I just triggered a new run and let's see how > > it goes: > > [dtcxzyw/llvm-opt-benchmark#3547](https://github.com/dtcxzyw/llvm-opt-benchmark/pull/3547) > > Hmm unfortunately looks like there's one regression that doesn't look good. > We're vectorizing when the alloca gets promoted as a scalar anyway, but then > this requires a bunch of inserts and extracts. > > Sorry to be such a stickler, again I haven't reviewed much so IDK exactly > what LLVM policy is, but I assume there should be a pretty high bar for > transforms like SROA because it's such an important pass.
I am OK. I think we should try fixing any regressions caused by changes in llvm passes since that could be a tip of an iceberg. I will look into this. Thanks. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165159 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
