Previously we went directly to unknown state on VTYPE mismatch.
If we instead remember the partial match, we can use this to
still use X0, X0 vsetvli in successors if AVL and needed SEW/LMUL
ratio match.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInsertVSETVLI.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
65–66 | Need init SEWLMULRatioOnly here. |
llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInsertVSETVLI.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
65–66 | Thanks! |
llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInsertVSETVLI.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
227 | I'm wondering if removing this use of the == operator is a sign we shouldn't have one for these types. Is it confusing to have different meaning of equality? Alternatively perhaps this operator is now unused so can be axed without much discussion. | |
llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/rvv/vsetvli-insert-crossbb.ll | ||
501 | Nit but this comment feels like it's missing something in The AVL is the same the SEW/LMUL ratio. A comma, or an and? |
clang-format not found in user’s local PATH; not linting file.