[LLVMdev] [RFC] Replacing EVT:s with MVT:s (when possible)

[Patrik Hägglund H]

There seems to be quite a few places where the EVT type is used, but the code asserts if the variable/parameter is assigned something else than an MVT. Are there any general objections to replace EVT with MVT in these cases?

For example, a quick look at TargetLowering.h give me this list of (member) functions, taking an EVT parameter, that asserts if the argument is not an MVT:

getRegClassFor, getRepRegClassFor, getRepRegClassCostFor, setTypeAction, getLoadExtAction, isLoadExtLegal, getTruncStoreAction, isTruncStoreLegal, getIndexedLoadAction, getIndexedStoreAction, getCondCodeAction, getTypeToPromoteTo, addRegisterClass

Regards,
Patrik Hägglund
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121203/d72ae610/attachment.html>