[llvm-commits] [llvm] r107114 - /llvm/trunk/lib/Target/ARM/ARMLoadStoreOptimizer.cpp
Jakob Stoklund Olesen
stoklund at 2pi.dk
Tue Jun 29 00:09:48 CDT 2010
On Jun 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Evan Cheng wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
>> Author: stoklund
>> Date: Mon Jun 28 20:13:07 2010
>> New Revision: 107114
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=107114&view=rev
>> When no memoperands are present, assume unaligned, volatile.
> Have you checked if this disabled a lot of potential optimizations? I am afraid assuming volatileness is overly conservative.
I haven't checked anything but running unit tests.
We need both non-volatile and 4-byte alignment to safely combine loads and stores. If memoperands are missing, I don't see any alternative. How else can we guarantee the optimization is valid?
If this causes missed optimizations, we should ensure that memory operands are present.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1929 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20100628/1005e437/attachment.bin
More information about the llvm-commits