We currently support them only in AArch64. The NEON Reference, however, says they are 'ARMv7, ARMv8' intrinsics.
Details
- Reviewers
SjoerdMeijer jgreenhalgh rengolin t.p.northover javed.absar - Commits
- rG9c40c0ad0ca4: [NEON] Support VLD1xN intrinsics in AArch32 mode (Clang part)
rG73c5337a642a: Revert r333819 "[NEON] Support VLD1xN intrinsics in AArch32 mode (Clang part)"
rG51f19b9ee1d8: [NEON] Support VLD1xN intrinsics in AArch32 mode (Clang part)
rC333829: [NEON] Support VLD1xN intrinsics in AArch32 mode (Clang part)
rL333829: [NEON] Support VLD1xN intrinsics in AArch32 mode (Clang part)
rL333824: Revert r333819 "[NEON] Support VLD1xN intrinsics in AArch32 mode (Clang part)"
rL333819: [NEON] Support VLD1xN intrinsics in AArch32 mode (Clang part)
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rL LLVM
Event Timeline
Had only a first brief look; see some first drive by comments inline.
lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
7865 ↗ | (On Diff #147718) | How about this FIXME? Is it still relevant? And does it need to be moved up? Or perhaps better: move the code back here to minimise the diff? |
test/CodeGen/arm-neon-vld.c | ||
4 ↗ | (On Diff #147718) | Should this be armv7? |
Thanks for reviewing.
lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
7865 ↗ | (On Diff #147718) | Yes, it's still true for the vst builtins handled below. None of the vld/vst patches removes this comment, but it should go away with whatever is the one to be committed last. Umm, it seems leaving the vld code here wouldn't make the diff smaller? |
test/CodeGen/arm-neon-vld.c | ||
4 ↗ | (On Diff #147718) | There are more ARMv8 vld intrinsics that we currently support only in A64 so I was going to add tests for them here. I'm not sure if we want to test availability of NEON intrinsics for various architectures with codegen tests like this one or have some separate tests in sema. |
I agree: these intrinsics are available in v7/A32/A64.
lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
7865 ↗ | (On Diff #147718) | ah yes, nevermind, got confused here. |