On Jun 19, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: >>> 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? > > Trivial remat will go away when proper remat is implemented. All > instructions without side-effect will be rematerializable if their > operands are available so all these will go away. Not that proper > remat is coming anytime soon though.
Ok. How do you intend to capture the "without side-effects" part? It seems that simple remat works for things that: 1. have no side effects 2. have no register inputs Is there another condition? If so, simple remat can check #2 today, just by itself looking at the machineinstr. Given that, it comes down to how we want to represent #1. -Chris _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
