[LLVMdev] Generalizing shuffle vector

[Chris Lattner]

On Sep 30, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Mon Ping Wang wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree that the more general shufflevector is more useful.  I
> narrowed the original proposal a little bit because of the concern for
> the implementation cost. However, the slightly narrowed definition
> will probably require falling backing to generate insert and extracts
> for complex masks so it is possible that there will be no extra cost
> in supporting the more general definition.  If that is the case, it
> will make sense to support the more general shuffle vector definition.

I agree with Mon Ping and Evan.  Lets feature creep it one step at a  
time :).

-Chris