Add integer promotion support for VP_SIGN_EXTEND and VP_ZERO_EXTEND like sign_extend and zero_extend
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
748 | This assert isn't useful, it's repeating the if condition. | |
752 | This handling is quite different than what was done for the none-VP version. Are we only doing this so getNode will squash the de-generate SIGN_EXTEND/ZERO_EXTEND that we get when NVT == Res.getValueType()? | |
1960 | No need for else if the if returned | |
1963 | Using SExtPromotedInteger creates a SIGN_EXTEND_INREG node. But that doesn't preserve the mask and VL. Should we have VP_SIGN_EXTEND_INREG? @frasercrmck @simoll | |
2108 | No need for else if the if returned | |
2111 | ZExtPromotedInteger uses ISD::AND, should we have a VP_AND here? |
This assert isn't useful, it's repeating the if condition.