| Issue |
145286
|
| Summary |
[GitHub] Add description to llvm::instcombine label to cover instsimplify / vectorcombine as well
|
| Labels |
question,
llvm:instcombine,
github:workflow
|
| Assignees |
|
| Reporter |
RKSimon
|
CC @nikic @dtcxzyw
As explained here: https://llvm.org/docs/InstCombineContributorGuide.html#pick-the-correct-optimization-pass
Would it be OK to use the github label llvm::InstCombine to refer to the sibling passes as well:
```
InstructionSimplify: For folds that do not create new instructions (either fold to existing value or constant).
InstCombine: For folds that create or modify instructions.
AggressiveInstCombine: For folds that are expensive, or violate InstCombine requirements.
VectorCombine: For folds of vector operations that require target-dependent cost-modelling.
```
or would you prefer they all have separate labels?
The doc also refers to:
```
ConstantFolding: For folding instructions with constant arguments to a constant. (Mainly relevant for intrinsics.)
ValueTracking: For analyzing instructions, e.g. for known bits, non-zero, etc. Tests should usually use -passes=instsimplify.
```
But these probably should use the llvm::analysis label?
![]()
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
