[LLVMdev] Heads up! Planning to remove old vector shuffle lowering this week...

[Chandler Carruth]

FWIW, I don't think we can remove this path just yet.

I had missed something I always intended to do: we don't adjust the shuffle
legality tests to reflect the new lowering. Until we do, a bunch of the
code is shared, and we're producing *deeply* wrong results about what
vector shuffles are legal.

I've added a flag to start experimenting with this and seeing how things
look in r225491.

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>
wrote:

>
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I concur.
>>
>> Just a quick question, did anyone check the differences on i386?
>>
>
> I haven't checked in any detail I'm afraid. I don't have any good way to
> do 32-bit x86 benchmarking these days.
>
>
> Same here.
>
>
> However, the Chromium performance bots haven't shown any significant
> problems.
>
>
> In that case, I say we are good to go.
>
> Thanks again for all the work!
>
> Q.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150108/933e6d6c/attachment.html>