User Details
- User Since
- May 21 2015, 2:19 AM (402 w, 6 d)
May 31 2019
Seems reasonable to me. LGTM
May 30 2019
Thanks, LGTM!
Jan 6 2019
LGTM! (with one nit)
Dec 28 2018
Oct 26 2018
Thanks, LGTM!
The initial intent was to make sure that we are forcing the operands to not be VFP registers, so I would have expected to get a vadd.f32 r0, r0, r0. However, since the instruction is invalid it doesn't make a good test (as you observed).
IIRC the contents of the asm string shouldn't matter here, and we would expect to get an error in the assembler instead when trying to assemble the output (which is fine, since this is a misuse of the X constraint).
Aug 24 2018
For pointer-with-unknown-bounds.ll, I think the point was just checking that we don't vectorize in the case where the SCEV expressions for the pointers are not affine.
Aug 17 2018
Hi Anna,
Jul 19 2018
LGTM
Jul 18 2018
Seems reasonable to me.
If this is no longer only used by Cortex-A15, I think the regression tests need to be updated to use the new feature instead of the passing the cpu.
Mar 22 2018
Feb 21 2018
Feb 19 2018
Feb 12 2018
LGTM with one minor nit.
Jan 29 2018
Thanks for submitting the fix! Please see the inline comments.
Dec 13 2017
LGTM!
Dec 10 2017
Dec 5 2017
Nov 28 2017
Hi Dorit,
Nov 20 2017
Nov 19 2017
Nov 18 2017
Sorry for not having a look earlier.
Sep 13 2017
Hi Anna,
Sep 12 2017
Thanks! Committed in r313012.
Aug 23 2017
Address comments received so far.
Aug 21 2017
Sorry for not replying earlier. It looks like there are only minor changes left? I plan to push an update after this gets unblocked.
Jul 3 2017
It looks ok to me, thanks!
Jun 14 2017
Jun 13 2017
This generally makes sense to me!
Jun 12 2017
Sorry for the delay, I missed the last update. I have a few minor suggestions, but otherwise I think it generally looks good.
I think Sanjoy still needs to approve this before it can go in.
Jun 6 2017
We already have the IR in misched-fusion-aes.ll that can be used for microbenchmarks (just call the functions in a loop)? I think that should be theoretically enough for an evaluation.
May 22 2017
May 15 2017
Hi Florian,
Apr 26 2017
Apr 25 2017
Apr 23 2017
nitpick: you should run a spell checker over the patch.
Apr 12 2017
Hi Dorit,
Apr 4 2017
LGTM
Mar 21 2017
Mar 16 2017
Mar 9 2017
Mar 8 2017
Renaming Force to Assume.
Mar 7 2017
Feb 28 2017
Hi Dorit,
Feb 20 2017
Jan 31 2017
Jan 10 2017
This looks straight-forward to me. LGTM.
LGTM!
Nov 30 2016
Thanks, both! r288253
Nov 29 2016
Update variable names names in the test and make it more readable overall.
Nov 25 2016
It looks like gcc should have been emitting an error here instead of the "sorry, not implemented".
Nov 23 2016
Thanks, that makes sense. I also wasn't aware of no-implicit-float.
Nov 18 2016
Update regression tests.
Oct 26 2016
Thanks for making the changes! LGTM
Yes, now that I think about it skipping case c) makes sense.
Oct 24 2016
Oct 21 2016
LGTM for the SCEV part.
Oct 20 2016
Oct 19 2016
Oct 18 2016
Oct 14 2016
Oct 12 2016
Oct 11 2016
Oct 10 2016
I just had a brief look through this, but I don't think LAA changes are correct (see the inline comment).
Also if there are non-functional changes here, could you split them into another review (this would make things easier to understand)?
Oct 8 2016
ShouldCheckWrap indicates if we need to check if the pointer is wrapping in order to identify this as a strided pointer. This is mainly needed for dependence analysis.
Sep 28 2016
Very nice! LGTM
Sep 14 2016
Sep 7 2016
I've investigated using MIR for getting a test case. The problem that I currently have with this is that I'm unable to run the PEI pass (where the problem is happening). If I try to do this I get a segfault in the stack protector pass. The problem seems to be that the TargetMachine is null. I'm not sure if this is something specific to PEI - but there doesn't seem to be any other regression tests that tries to run just this pass.
Sep 6 2016
Thanks, Hal! r280698
Sep 1 2016
Aug 8 2016
Thanks, James! Committed in r278002.