- User Since
- Oct 9 2015, 4:06 AM (144 w, 6 d)
Mon, Jun 25
Factor out SIInstrInfo::hasUnwantedEffectsWhenEXECEmpty
Thu, Jun 21
Jun 19 2018
Preserve the case in preprocessor guards for GenericEnum and GenericTable.
Jun 18 2018
Ping. Does this look alright?
Jun 16 2018
Jun 15 2018
I've had some time to let this sink in now.
We do have tests for those in AMDGPU, with -enable-unsafe-fp-math. We don't have systematic tests with the new contract/reassoc bits. At least the Mesa frontend doesn't generate those anyway at the moment.
Thanks. I feel like some of this could perhaps be improved with a computeKnownBits if there is a 64-bit uniform base and a 32-bit non-uniform offset, but that doesn't have to be part of this change.
I guess it would be nice to have something like opt's -analyze output in an llc flow as well, but I don't think we do, so I think this is fine.
Jun 14 2018
Address review comments
- Address review comments
- Fix formatting
- Fix IsContiguous optimization for non-primary search indices
I'm assuming that I can submit this as-is soon. I'm holding off for now so that I can submit all MIMG-related changes in this stack at once.
Address review comments. Going to submit later today.
Jun 11 2018
Sorry for the lack of context.
Jun 5 2018
Jun 4 2018
Sorry, I somehow managed to miss the REL64 definition. It's fine.
My apologies. I thought I was testing all targets, but clearly I wasn't, and I didn't see buildbot failures.
Address a review comment
What is this actually needed for? Having a relative relocation in a data segment doesn't seem that useful?
May 30 2018
And by the way, I do agree with your rationale for why !name is very useful to have in JSON. The C++ backends can (and do) use Record::getName() for the same functionality.
There are arguments both for !key + !name and for !name + !anonymous, although thinking about it for a minute or two I weakly prefer !name + !anonymous because it matches the representation in C++. It makes it easier for people to move between JSON and C++.
I agree on the test case, unfortunately it requires a lot of setup to make the backend do anything useful at all.
Thank you for the review!
Address review comments.
May 29 2018
May 27 2018
Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, but would you mind holding off on this a little bit? I'd like to think this through.
It's an intrinsic vs. unsigned warning. LGTM.