- rebase on main
- change comment: round-towards-odd -> round-to-odd
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Yesterday
LGTM
Tue, Jan 26
- merge rv32/rv64 tests
LGTM
Yes, we're certainly not moving away from update_llc_test_checks.py for the vector tests; I've used it in all of my work thus far. This test doesn't work perfectly with either the llc or mir scripts because it's IR -> MIR. The llc script does nothing on this test.
Thanks, @craig.topper!
Mon, Jan 25
- rebase on main
- use custom-lowering and fewer patterns
- move FromFPR32 helper to anticipate incoming changes
In D95272#2519211, @jrtc27 wrote:That's not what we've done elsewhere; rv64 is regarded as a superset of rv32, which is almost true.
Looking good; thanks for doing this. Should we change the name of the 32+64 tests now that they test both?
LGTM, though I'd prefer the linter's suggestion over that manually-formatted code. You might be able to improve it somewhat with choice use of parens?
Fri, Jan 22
- rebase on main
- address bits of Craig's feedback
- add in assertions
rebase on main
LGTM
LGTM
LGTM
In D94652#2512628, @asb wrote:I think making the assumption that they probably meant to move to Zbp should be fine.
Thu, Jan 21
LGTM, but should we document these "extra" things we're doing on top of the published spec? I'm not sure where, but it might help someone reading the spec as written.
LGTM
LGTM
LGTM
In D94652#2509956, @craig.topper wrote:My hope is to get the 0.93 move into LLVM 12. Zbb is marked frozen in the 0.93 spec and does not include these. So I'd at least like them out of Zbb. Would it be better to just remove them until they have a home?
LGTM
LGTM
Wed, Jan 20
LGTM
Changes look good but, like you, I can't see that these instructions are in that section (or any section for that matter). We can keep an eye on the issue you filed and approve once it's confirmed?
LGTM. I take it the patterns can come later?
LGTM
LGTM
What are the implications of having the renamed Zbe instructions in what we'll advertise as 0.93?
I posted something about this bug late last year but haven't found the time to progress with it. So I thought I'd at least put up a test case so it's tracked.
Tue, Jan 19
- rebase on main
LGTM
- rebase on main
- only custom-lower for legal types
- improve handling of illegal scalar types and splats thereof
Mon, Jan 18
- rebase on main
- fix conflicts
add pats for anyext: treat like zext for now
LGTM
- rebase on main
Fri, Jan 15
LGTM. I hadn't come across this function before so thanks for the intro.
- fix up bad type mangling in tests (e.g. nx4i8 -> nxv4i8)
LGTM
LGTM from a change point of view. I can't really add to the discussion about how/when to switch from 0.92 to 0.93 so I'm not saying "merge right away" :)
Makes sense to me. I think we'll have to handle "misaligned" vectors at some point too, since the DataLayout can only represent the alignment of vectors based on their overall size.
LGTM
Thu, Jan 14
- replace patterns with custom-lowering
Wed, Jan 13
A few too many changes to look over one-by-one, and my browser is chugging, but from what I've seen: LGTM.
Tue, Jan 12
@c-rhodes or @david-arm I've updated the AArch64 tests naively but I thought I'd tag you in case you don't intend to be shifting out all bits.
LGTM other than my suggestion.
LGTM
LGTM.