Clarify reasons for not including loop unrolling.
authorMatthijs Kooijman <kooijman@eris.recoresystems.com>
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:08:44 +0000 (10:08 +0200)
committerMatthijs Kooijman <kooijman@eris.recoresystems.com>
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:08:44 +0000 (10:08 +0200)
Report/Main/Problems/Challenges.tex

index 450b6ba7b217318285038cd0ef2fded5dda2ffb4..b5d5f8e7aac725f05c35b4c31a779577d336c3cc 100644 (file)
@@ -176,8 +176,10 @@ written, but I can't really tell what's needed until I know how the code works,
 which I can't effectively learn without actively working with it, etc.) I
 started out with adapting the loop unrolling pass in LLVM to be better suited to
 the Montium architecture. Eventually, this code didn't turn out to be
-immediately useful (it's still not included currently), but it proved very
-insightful as to how the LLVM framework is built and what its possibilities are.
+immediately useful because deciding when to unroll a loop and when not to turned
+out rather hard (it's still not included currently). Working with this pass did
+prove very insightful, however, as to how the LLVM framework is built and what its
+possibilities are.
 
 Additionally, during my working with the code in this internship I also produced
 a number of patches for LLVM, containing bugfixes, some cleanup and