[llvm-commits] [llvm] r120574 - /llvm/trunk/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp

[Eric Christopher]

On Dec 1, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:

>>> I don't think it makes any sense to assert that the target supports SSE3 here.
>>> The user (i.e. whoever generated a call to the intrinsic in the first place) is
>>> essentially asking for a particular instruction to be placed in the assembler.
>>> If that instruction won't execute on the target machine, that's their problem
>>> not ours.  Two buildbots with processors that don't support SSE3 were barfing
>>> on the apm.ll test in CodeGen/X86 because of this assertion.
>> 
>> Or we could just make sure the testcase uses sse3 for codegen?
> 
> That was the other possibility, but since I don't see the point in asserting
> I went for this one instead (nothing else in the code generators blows up if
> you do this).  Do you think an assertion is better?  Philosophically an
> assertion is wrong since it should only be used in impossible situations which
> this is clearly not!

That's fair, it's a pretty standard assertion in a lot of the expanders though.

That said, your argument is good too :) Just bringing it up.

-eric