[PATCH] Fix two issues on unaligned 256-bit vector memory access on AVX

[Nadav Rotem]

On Mar 23, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Michael Liao <michael.liao at intel.com> wrote:

> Hi All
> 
> On Sandybridge, unaligned 256-bit vector memory access needs splitting
> to avoid higher cache line split penalty. The 1st patch enhances ToT to
> handle non <4 x i64> vector integer types.

You are moving comments and definitions around and it makes it difficult to review the code.  

For the first patch, the "if (Op->getOpcode == BITCAST)" line looks okay, but why did you have to move the code that handles concat vectors ?

Regarding the second patch, this change introduces a bug if the alignment is zero. 

> The 2nd patch fixes two
> alignment calculation issues in ToT. One is a memory access is regarded
> as aligned if the specified alignment is larger than the natural
> alignment; the other issue is that the alignment for the high 128-bit
> vector should be min(16, original alignment) since the pointer is
> advanced by 16B, a power-of-2 offset.
> 
> Test cases are included for each patch.
> 
> Thanks for review
> - Michael
> 
> <0001-Enhance-folding-of-extract_subvec-insert_subvec-V1-V.patch><0002-Revise-alignment-calculation-issues-on-256-bit-unali.patch>_______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130325/03a9dd4a/attachment.html>