On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Manuel Klimek via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Yep. We'll make it better by limiting the size, but trivially copyable is > an improvement, as there are orders of magnitude more loops over small > copyable types than over large ones. > We seem to be growing repeated logic for these rules in many checks (suggesting pass by value, loop convert, maybe others) - could we centralize these rules somewhere so we apply consistent logic in all of them? (& call out any necessary variation there) > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 9:02 PM comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Manuel Klimek via cfe-commits >> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > Fix loop-convert for trivially copyable types. >> >> If I'm not misunderstanding the patch, "trivially copyable" by itself >> seems like a suboptimal test. After all, "trivial" can still include >> an expensive memcpy of a large struct. >> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
