- User Since
- Feb 26 2016, 6:34 AM (185 w, 6 d)
Jan 14 2019
Committed in rL350931
Jan 11 2019
Jan 8 2019
Dec 14 2018
Dec 10 2018
Thanks @brzycki for careful review. I need to revive my commit access (not used it for two years now), then I will commit this.
Dec 7 2018
Thanks @brzycki. I believe I have addressed all your comments. Will upload the modified patch shortly.
Dec 4 2018
Sep 27 2017
Aug 16 2017
Jun 12 2017
Dec 19 2016
@echristo explicitly approved this in his last comment, but I think he forgot to change the action box. So I accept just for easier book-keeping. (Eric is in vacation, AFAIK)
Dec 15 2016
This patch, as is, is incorrect and requires some changes to proceed. Abandoning.
Dec 7 2016
Dec 1 2016
Nov 30 2016
Added the clean up step that we discussed. Also, made some changes in the comments in the code.
Nov 29 2016
Nov 28 2016
Will shortly update the patch.
Nov 24 2016
Nov 23 2016
Nov 18 2016
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL287334 (fixed the comment in a followup commit though).
Nov 17 2016
Nov 16 2016
Could someone take a look at this?
Nov 11 2016
Nov 10 2016
I actually wanted to check some surrounding guards.
Nov 9 2016
Nov 8 2016
Nov 3 2016
I put this back in review as Eric wanted to take a look.
now fully tested with test-suite.
Nov 2 2016
Just finished lnt test and there are some failures. I will update when my investigation of the failures is done.
Completed the unit test and code. I decided that extending this for signed comparison is not necessary good, because two zero extends that we generate for unsigned comparison, will be sign extension for signed comparison. That means the signed version will have two more instructions. There might be still more useful cases, but I think they are different enough and we don't need to make them part of this patch.
Thanks David for the review. I have tested this with test-suite. I forgot to do so, after I made first set of changes.
Nov 1 2016
I opened a PR for this and copied the last couple of comments there. CC'ed Eric and Matt on the PR.
This seems redundant to me as soon as 1) is implemented.
Eric, asked for a little more clean up.
Oct 31 2016
Regarding (2): I think we need to make sure InstCombine and target Independent lowering are doing the right thing for these. Fixing as late as possible does not seem correct to me. But I leave to other reviewers to decide.
Oct 30 2016
Oct 29 2016
Oct 28 2016
Yeah, when I was implementing some of the P9 instructions that naturally fit the BUILD_VECTOR nodes, I realized that we produce poor code for some patterns. I wanted to see how bad this situation is so I wrote the C test case that is added as a comment to build-vector-tests.ll and examined the assembly. Then I picked off the patterns that produce poor code and fixed them one by one.
Thanks Nemanja for comments on the testcase.
Oct 27 2016
Do you have further comments on this?
There has been many comments here, but only a couple of minor issues has to be addressed. (check indentation, remove whitespace, change some variable names). If you don't mind to approve it, I will fix those before committing.
Oct 26 2016
There is one comment not yet addressed. Size of latest legal integer is currently hardcoded. As I responded to that comment I will fix it. I want to look at this a bit more to see if it makes sense to add some extensions to it.