sdesmalen added a comment. In D71556#1786465 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71556#1786465>, @efriedma wrote:
> I'm not sure it's legal to transform a non-faulting load to a load with a > non-faulting flag? At least, we'd need to consider the implications of that > very carefully. In particular, I'm concerned about the interaction with > intrinsics that read/write FFR. I mean, you could specify that loads marked > MONonFaulting actually write to the FFR register, but that seems confusing. > > It seems simpler to preserve the intrinsic until isel, at least for now. I missed this comment earlier, but that's a valid point. For SVE having side-effects is assumed from the non-faulting flag. We hoped to latch on to the MLOAD here to reuse code and benefit from legalization in case we want to add a more generic mechanism in the future to use such loads directly in the loop-vectorizer. Perhaps we can clarify the intent that the non-faulting mode may have side-effects by renaming the flag to something like `NonFaultingWithSideEffects`? Otherwise we can stick with the intrinsics as you suggest. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71556/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71556 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
