[LLVMdev] MachineOperand::TargetFlags question

[Villmow, Micah]

From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:10 PM
To: Villmow, Micah
Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MachineOperand::TargetFlags question


On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote:


I'm looking at utilizing the MachineOperand::TargetFlags and I'm wondering if there is a specific reason on limiting the size of the flags to 8 bits. Also are there any assumptions on what can be validly used here that I should keep in mind? Ideally I need 28 bits but I can code the major cases using all 8 bits, but I don't want to clobber anything that might be used internally in LLVM.


Micah, you shouldn't encode this into TargetFlags, this should become an immediate operand of its own.

-Chris

[Villmow, Micah] This is the approach I currently take, however I don't like it because if I change an operand and it requires a change to the channel, I have to modify a different operand instead of modifying the current operand. I don't want to differentiate between an immediate that is an actual compile time literal versus an immediate that is used to represent the channel swizzle. There should be a cleaner approach where this type of check isn't required.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20101022/d79364c5/attachment.html>