scchan added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31210#706955, @yaxunl wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31210#706890, @kzhuravl wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31210#706880, @rampitec wrote: > > > > > I'm concerned about the default address space to be 64 bit. It would move > > > alloca into generic address space effectively making private address to > > > be 64 bit. > > > This may have very undesirable performance implications, like address > > > arithmetic can become expensive 64 bit and only be truncated at load or > > > store. > > > I realize you will use addrspacecast on an alloca's value, though I'm > > > not sure that is sufficient to mitigate performance hit. > > > I believe such change shall not be made without a good performance > > > comparison with the feature enabled, provided the very likely performance > > > issues. > > > > > > Did not we want to use this: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-March/111199.html and use > > non-0 for our allocas? > > > Our final goal is to let alloca return private pointer. The Clang changes are > mostly common whether alloca returns generic pointer or private pointer. > Actually to be able to test the above patch we need to get the changes in > Clang done first. The goal for this is mainly to bring the mapping closer to nvptx? https://reviews.llvm.org/D31210 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
