Switched to using new custom operands design.
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D121696.
Details
Diff Detail
Unit Tests
| Time | Test | |
|---|---|---|
| 60,130 ms | x64 debian > BOLT.runtime/X86::exceptions-pic.test | |
| 60,250 ms | x64 debian > LLVM.CodeGen/NVPTX::wmma.py | |
| 60,230 ms | x64 debian > LLVM.MC/Mips::mips-jump-pc-region.s | 
Event Timeline
| llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/Utils/AMDGPUAsmUtils.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 24 | I think it would be neater to define and use a new isGFX8GFX9 instead of having a lambda inside this table. (And the same for the hwreg table that you pushed already.) | |
LGTM (with or without addressing my nitpicks about naming).
| llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/Utils/AMDGPUBaseInfo.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1500 | Maybe it would be simpler to implement this as "isNotGFX10Plus" instead? | |
| 1522 | In AMDGPU.td there is a predicate called "isGFX10Before1030". Maybe we should use the same name in both places? I don't have a preference for which name is better. | |
clang-format: please reformat the code
- {{""}}, - {{"MSG_INTERRUPT"}, ID_INTERRUPT}, - {{"MSG_GS"}, ID_GS}, - {{"MSG_GS_DONE"}, ID_GS_DONE}, - {{"MSG_SAVEWAVE"}, ID_SAVEWAVE, isGFX8Plus}, - {{"MSG_STALL_WAVE_GEN"}, ID_STALL_WAVE_GEN, isGFX9Plus}, - {{"MSG_HALT_WAVES"}, ID_HALT_WAVES, isGFX9Plus}, - {{"MSG_ORDERED_PS_DONE"}, ID_ORDERED_PS_DONE, isGFX9Plus}, - {{"MSG_EARLY_PRIM_DEALLOC"}, ID_EARLY_PRIM_DEALLOC, isGFX9}, - {{"MSG_GS_ALLOC_REQ"}, ID_GS_ALLOC_REQ, isGFX9Plus},22 diff lines are omitted. See full path.