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

[Chris Lattner]

On Dec 3, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Patrik Hägglund H <patrik.h.hagglund at ericsson.com> wrote:

> 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
>  

Please do.  MVT is cheaper than EVT and conceptually cleaner when dealing with physical machine types.  EVT should only be used in parts of the code generator that are "pre-legalization" because they can represent arbitrary IR types.  Anything that takes a legal machine type should take an MVT.

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121203/b32e085f/attachment.html>