[PATCH] D41517: mmintrin.h documentation fixes and updates

[Simon Pilgrim via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

RKSimon added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lib/Headers/mmintrin.h:55
 ///
-/// This intrinsic corresponds to the <c> VMOVD / MOVD </c> instruction.
+/// This intrinsic corresponds to the <c> MOVD </c> instruction.
 ///
----------------
efriedma wrote:
> craig.topper wrote:
> > kromanova wrote:
> > > I tried clang on Linux, x86_64, and if -mavx option is passed, we generate VMOVD, if this option is omitted, we generate MOVD.
> > > I think I understand the rational behind this change (namely, to keep MOVD, but remove VMOVD),
> > > since this intrinsic should use MMX registers and shouldn't have corresponding AVX instruction(s).
> > > 
> > > However, that's what we generate at the moment when -mavx is passed (I suspect because our MMX support is limited)
> > > vmovd   %edi, %xmm0
> > > 
> > > Since we are writing the documentation for clang compiler, we should document what clang compiler is doing, not what is should be doing.
> > > Craig, what do you think? Should we revert back to VMOVD/MOVD?
> > > 
> > We can change it back to VMOVD/MOVD
> The reference to vmovd seems confusing.  Yes, LLVM compiles `_mm_movpi64_epi64(_mm_cvtsi32_si64(i))` to vmovd, but that doesn't mean either of those intrinsics "corresponds" to vmovd; that's just the optimizer combining two operations into one.
Should all these _mm_cvt* intrinsics be replaced with a 'this is a utility function' style comment like the _mm_set1* intrinsics?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D41517