[PATCH] D76716: [ARM][MVE] Tail predicate VMAXV(unsigned) and VMAXAV

[Sjoerd Meijer via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

SjoerdMeijer added a comment.

The unit test failure looks genuine, does that needs fixing?

A minor question inlined.



================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMInstrMVE.td:850
+multiclass MVE_VMAXV_ty<string iname, string intrBaseName> {
+  defm s8 : MVE_VMINMAXV_p<iname, 1, 0, 0, MVE_v16s8, intrBaseName>;
+  defm s16: MVE_VMINMAXV_p<iname, 1, 0, 0, MVE_v8s16, intrBaseName>;
----------------
same for these 3 (why not suitable for TP?)


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMInstrMVE.td:897
 
-defm MVE_VMINAV : MVE_VMINMAXAV_ty<"vminav", 1, "int_arm_mve_minav">;
-defm MVE_VMAXAV : MVE_VMINMAXAV_ty<"vmaxav", 0, "int_arm_mve_maxav">;
+defm MVE_VMINAV : MVE_VMINMAXAV_ty<"vminav", 1, 0, "int_arm_mve_minav">;
+defm MVE_VMAXAV : MVE_VMINMAXAV_ty<"vmaxav", 0, 1, "int_arm_mve_maxav">;
----------------
I am being lazy here (haven't checked the ARMARM), but why is this vmin not suitable for TP?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D76716/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D76716