[llvm] r273148 - [AARCH64] Add support for Broadcom Vulcan

[Eric Christopher via llvm-commits]

Okay, sounds good!

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:23 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:

> Oh, right. Diana is going one by one, for every use of "is cpu x", and
> will submit patches. I'm not sure of the sequence.
>
> I remember trying to do something similar in the past but always getting
> stuck with too many changes. I think her approach to pick lots of small
> fights (code and bikeshedding) is probably more productive.
>
> If you want to share the load, or discuss the overall approach, you better
> coordinate / discuss that on the bug, as she can give you a better
> overview.
>
> We're finally doing some much needed refactoring in the arm and AArch64
> back ends, so any additional pair of eyes (and hands) is welcome! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Renato
> On 21 Jun 2016 1:11 a.m., "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep. That's exactly what needs to be done - hence me asking why the
>> subtarget cpus were seen to be a good idea.
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:09 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Basically, https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27992
>>> On 21 Jun 2016 1:00 a.m., "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:34 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20 June 2016 at 23:25, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > That said, one way I've seen these sorts of things being used is via
>>>>> > ST->isCPUX() for TTI and a few other things which is fairly valid.
>>>>> We might
>>>>> > need a better way of doing that, basically defining the name of the
>>>>> cpu as a
>>>>> > subtarget feature is a bit wonky really.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're moving things from isCPUX to hasFeature to get rid of long
>>>>> conditionals (isX || isY || isZ || ... ) and to make matters clear why
>>>>> is it that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that doesn't preclude us from getting rid of the feature name and
>>>>> its bad usage. We just want to keep the feature-based code gen, that's
>>>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Btw, there are patches coming on ARM to replace isCPUX with target
>>>>> features from us in the next few days / weeks, so we may want to wait
>>>>> until that's done to refactor the SubtargetFeature list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Seems reasonable. I'm curious which way you're going so if you wouldn't
>>>> mind adding me here I'd appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> -eric
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160621/41565848/attachment.html>