mehdi_amini added a comment. In D124750#3502228 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124750#3502228>, @srishti-pm wrote:
> In D124750#3500748 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124750#3500748>, @mehdi_amini > wrote: > >> Seems like this should be added to canonicalization? The "push constants to >> the right hand side" is there already. > > I think this was not added to canonicalization because we wanted it to be an > independent utility that can be used if needed and not be used if not needed. You're telling me "what" while I'm actually more interested in the "why" here? >> I also don't understand the complexity of the implementation, I may need an >> example to understand why you're recursively operating on the producer ops >> for the operands. >> From the revision description: (1) the operands defined by non-constant-like >> ops come first, followed by (2) block arguments, and these are followed by >> (3) the operands defined by constant-like ops` which all seems like a fairly >> local check: a stable-sort on the operands would be deterministic and local >> to a single operation. > > I do this because, firstly, in the description, if you look below this > paragraph, you will see the following: > "And, if two operands come from the same op, the function backtracks and > looks even further to sort them. This backtracking is done over the > backward slice of the operand, in a breadth-first traversal." Same as before: this does not tell me why, can you provide an example where this matters? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124750/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124750 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
