Addressing review comments.

In D134205#3822515, @ktras wrote:

LGTM.

Do you have commit permissions? Or do you need someone to commit on your behalf?

In D134205#3804483, @ktras wrote:

The tests look great! Please see my inline comments for some suggestions. Also, I see that you are checking to make sure that type mismatches for the team-number, team-variable and the specifiers in the form-team-spec-list are caught, which is great. Since all of these are supposed to be scalar, what about checking that rank mismatches for team-number, team-variable and the specifiers are not allowed?

Addressing review comments.

Fixed tests incorrectly using zeroinitializer instead of undef for %evl, causing it to be ignored.

More fixes to the length-only scalarization, and added tests using the Power8 target for this scalarization.

Addressing review comments.

Fixing errors that were introduced from rebasing.

Expanded LIT tests with a lot more cases, including vector splitting.

More assertion fixes.

Addressing review comments.

Added more legalization to this patch rather than putting it into another patch. Added another form of getLoadVP that was needed by the legalization. Expanded tests to cover vector splitting.

Adding tests using RISCV lowering

Fixing some miner logic issues.

Putting back accidentally-deleted test file.

Fixing some arc errors when making the patch.

In D109377#2987331, @craig.topper wrote:

Tests?

Addressing review comments.

@simoll Do you mind merging this one in as well?

Addressing review comment.

Addressing review comments.

@simoll @frasercrmck All the mentioned tests are now passing, and I don't think there are any other outstanding issues. Are we good to accept and merge?

Addressing review comments.

Addressing review comments.

Addressing reviews: adding some missing cases for predicated gather/scatter.

Addressing review comments: extending SDBuilder::VisitVectorPredicationIntrinsic.

Addressing review comments: updating sdnodes with indexing, expanding, compressing support; bringing in line with load/store sdnodes.

In D105871#2904152, @frasercrmck wrote:

This patch also needs to extend SelectionDAGBuilder to custom-build the "mem" nodes from the intrinsics. Otherwise we won't be creating the SDNodes correctly, e.g. there'll be an invalid MachineMemOperand.

In D99355#2849287, @simoll wrote:

One more thing: title & summary do not reflect what's in the patch anymore. Please update those too.

addressing review comments

I rebased, fixed some failing unit tests, and extended VPIntrinsic::getDeclarationForParams to handle memory intrins. Not sure if I got arc to properly pick everything up.

rebasing

rebasing

I don't have commit access. Can someone commit this please?

I believe I've addressed everything now.

addressing review comments

addressing review comments

In D99355#2784442, @simoll wrote:

In D99355#2781282, @frasercrmck wrote:

I had a thought about alignment. Do we have a plan on how to deal with unaligned accesses?

Not yet

The other non-VP masked intrinsics are scalarized by the ScalarizeMaskedMemIntrin pass and regular loads and stores are handled by -- I believe -- LegalizeDAG.

Maybe vp can piggyback on ScalarizeMaskedMemIntrin for unaligned access expansion.

It already will piggyback on ScalarizeMaskedMemIntrin for scalarization, so that should be straightforward to put into the followup VP-mem-expansion patch.

Addressing review comments.

Addressing review comments.

Various code review fixes.

Reverted some SDNode bits.

@nemanjai I amended the description with some detail on the work I will be using this in, as discussed. LMK if it should be more detailed.

In D70108#1802747, @nemanjai wrote:

I realize that without any uses of these functions, we can't really add a test case. However, can we at least get a description of why this is useful in the middle end if this patch won't add any users of these functions?

Generally, I am a bit apprehensive about adding functions without callers if we don't have a clear roadmap to when/how these will be used.

ping