User Details
- User Since
- Mar 24 2016, 3:59 AM (326 w, 6 d)
Today
Yesterday
Format patch
Tue, Jun 28
I'm not sure I understand the concern but my impression is that we're debating the difference between the following two equivalent forms of the loop
Mon, Jun 27
Fri, Jun 24
LGTM for llvm-exegesis.
Thu, Jun 23
First comments: statically sized operations.
Mon, Jun 20
Sun, Jun 19
Fri, Jun 17
Thu, Jun 16
Wed, Jun 15
Tue, Jun 14
Fri, Jun 10
Wed, Jun 8
In general I think this makes a lot more sense.
Tue, Jun 7
Fri, Jun 3
Thu, Jun 2
Wed, Jun 1
As a very high level, design comment, I would like to note that I think we should strive to get into a state where the lowering of a SizedOp is done via a instrinsic call for all operation type (right now, this is only the case for memcpy).
Tue, May 31
May 19 2022
Apr 15 2022
Update llc tests too.
Rebase on base test.
Mar 10 2022
Feb 17 2022
Feb 8 2022
Feb 2 2022
Jan 5 2022
Address review comments.
Thanks.
Jan 3 2022
Dec 20 2021
Try to get rid of "dependent and not a pointer" checks checks.
Dec 10 2021
Dec 8 2021
Dec 7 2021
Dec 5 2021
Dec 3 2021
ping
Nov 25 2021
Yes, I think the new approach is what we want. The comments also make it much clearer.
address comment
Add more comments on the approach.
Nov 24 2021
Rebase on submitted unit tests so that we can see the changes better.
Nov 23 2021
add container exclusion tests for operators.
Canonicalize more types and add more container tests.
Nov 22 2021
rebase
Nov 19 2021
Nov 18 2021
Thanks for the details, this explains the motivation well. I think the key point is the combination of:
Nov 16 2021
ping
Nov 9 2021
one more spaceship operator fix.
Nov 5 2021
Nov 4 2021
Is this change observable in some way?
Implement the proposed changes.