User Details
- User Since
- Jan 9 2018, 11:39 AM (263 w, 5 d)
Dec 13 2022
Hi Sanjay,
May 16 2022
Doesn't look like this just handles --llc-binary command line argument of update_llc_test_checks.py correctly: I assume references to llc from within the preprocess_cmd should also be replaced with the value of --llc-binary if any, similarly to the substitution done for the main part of the command?
Apr 29 2021
Apr 27 2021
My suggestion is to keep making progress here:
- move the check out of is profitable to processBlock top level
- put a comprehensive comment on it outlining the issues discussed here (and off fabricator) so far
- do (2) in the test as well (and keep the test otherwise as is)
Apr 23 2021
Feb 24 2020
Addressing the feedback (tidying up the comments a bit as discussed, going for if(! continue; instead of if() {})
Trimming down the comments a little bit as requested.
Dec 13 2019
Addressing the feedback, NFC.
Adding // Adding Use to ArtifactList. comment in front of WrapperObserver.changedInstr(Use); as requested, NFC.
missed a test case update (arm64-fallback.ll)
Dec 12 2019
Nov 1 2019
Added a TableGen test as requested, though, I'm quite convinced it wasn't worth the time and will be difficult to maintain.
Oct 31 2019
Oct 30 2019
Oct 16 2019
Oct 14 2019
Oct 11 2019
Sep 18 2019
Apr 18 2019
Mar 14 2019
LGTM, please consider adding the following test:
Feb 26 2019
Closing as we decided not to pursue this.
Feb 22 2019
Shall we close this?
Thank you!
Is this good to go in?
Feb 20 2019
Feb 19 2019
Feb 18 2019
I've filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40766 to track that.
Thanks for addressing the comments.
Feb 16 2019
Hi Matt,
Feb 15 2019
- Addressed comments
- Refined the switch's operand constraints with known bits and added corresponding tests (all based on real-world cases)
Feb 14 2019
Feb 12 2019
Feb 11 2019
I don't think this matters since the values should all be exactly representable.
Feb 5 2019
Feb 4 2019
Jan 18 2019
Jan 17 2019
Updated the test as requested
Oct 31 2018
Do you think it's better to remove the NFC tag from the patch? It doesn't look like it's completely NFC, though, I've tested this out for a major (though, out of tree) GPU target on a very large suite of shaders and found no difference.
LGTM, thanks for doing this!