>> This achieves two things: >> >> 1. Just looking at the .td file, you can tell which instructions are >> candidates for remat. >> 2. The isRematerializable predicate is faster for instructions that >> are not remat-able. >> 3. The isReallyRematerializable only needs to be implemented by >> targets with instructions that are remat-able only in some cases >> (like the x86 instructions). > > I okay'd Dan patch after considering the trade-offs. To me this gets > rid of the duplicate instructions so it's worth it.
I think both approaches get rid of the duplicate instructions. > If we are really concerned about the speed, then I agree the hybrid > approach is the best. Sorry about the confusion. Speed is something to consider, but I don't think it should override maintainability. > Not to mention I had already considered the "trivial > rematerialization" > scheme to be temporary. Okay, how do you think this should work going forward? -Chris _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
