In order to be consistent with the naming scheme introduced
by D136678 for the register class PPR_p8to15, I've also
created this patch to rename PPR3b to PPR_p0to7.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
sdesmalen paulwalker-arm efriedma
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
Unit Tests
Unit Tests
Time | Test | |
---|---|---|
60,040 ms | x64 debian > MLIR.Examples/standalone::test.toy |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
I won't go as far as saying I'm against this patch given there is logic behind the change but I will highlight the existing idiom of specifying the bit length to restrict the range of another operand is pretty common. For example, we have ZPR_3b, ZPR_4b and the immediates are defined in this way. My comment on D136678 was more about not needing to duplicate information for something that wasn't purely about restricting the upper bound. However, the change is sensible and more expressive so if you feel strongly enough then fair enough.