[PATCH] D142270: [ValueTracking] Add tests for known bits after common BMI pattern (blsmsk/blsi); NFC

Noah Goldstein via Phabricator via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Sun Jan 29 12:09:48 PST 2023


goldstein.w.n added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/Analysis/ValueTracking/knownbits-bmi-pattern.ll:268
+
+define <2 x i1> @blsmsk_signed_is_false_assume_vec(<2 x i32> %x) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @blsmsk_signed_is_false_assume_vec(
----------------
nikic wrote:
> FWIW, I would remove all but one of these vector assume tests. They don't really add anything in a world where we just don't support vector assumes. (If we were to add support for them, that would get separate test coverage, and I doubt the canonical pattern we'd require for them would look like what you're doing here -- we'd probably want an assume over an and reduction.)
> FWIW, I would remove all but one of these vector assume tests. They don't really add anything in a world where we just don't support vector assumes. (If we were to add support for them, that would get separate test coverage, and I doubt the canonical pattern we'd require for them would look like what you're doing here -- we'd probably want an assume over an and reduction.)

Removed all but 2, one for `blsi` and one for `blsmsk` (one for `add_eval` and one for `cmp_eq`).

Unrelated but I see you have a page tracking llvm build times. Do you know what the fastest build flags are for building clang itself (for development/rebuilding, don't care about executable perf, just want it to build v fast)?



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D142270/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D142270



More information about the llvm-commits mailing list