[PATCH] AArch64 Neon Scalar Integer Compare Instructions

[James Molloy]

>
> I will follow the LLVM developers policy, which is to submit/commit small
> incremental patches.  Unfortunately, I don't believe it's acceptable to
> bend the rules to accommodate our needs.


Hi Chad,

I think Jiangning was more wondering whether it was possible for you to
send him (or post to the list, but not ask for review on) a monolithic
patch with all your changes applied - not asking you to change how the
reviews are being done!

Cheers,

James


On 9 October 2013 16:45, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Chad,
>
> > Alternatively, I could add the implicit zero to Ops[] in CGBuiltin.cpp,
> > but for some reason that doesn't feel right either.  Maybe it's fine.
>
> I'd say that's the nicer solution. For example it means that if anyone
> wrote a vceq_s16 (say) and much later on we could prove the argument
> was a constant 0 then we'd still be able to use the "cmeq hN, #0"
> form.
>
> Of course, we could add patterns to do that anyway, but I like the
> goal of having a minimal set of extra intrinsics. If nothing else
> there's a reasonable hope that it would give more of this
> serendipitous cross-matching.
>
> >> Possibly modelled as a NEON_VDUP for selection?
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow.  I'm rather new to this area.
>
> Just musing on what would get through to ISelDAG if you called
> "@llvm.aarch64.neon.vcmeq.v1i16(<1 x i16> %lhs, <1 x i16> <i16 0>)".
> I'm not really sure myself, though.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Tim.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131009/2b9e49ca/attachment.html>