lebedev.ri added a comment. In D98757#2630961 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98757#2630961>, @xiangzhangllvm wrote:
> In D98757#2630942 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98757#2630942>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > >> I strongly suggest you bring up this ongoing creep of `if >> (DestTy->isX86_AMXTy()) return false;` on llvm-dev. >> I strongly supsect you are covering up bugs in you backend/pass with them. > > Sorry, I don't much understand your idea, I happen to find this bug when I > supporting fast reg allocation for AMX. > It fold the Constant bitcast of tile type into a amx instruction, which will > escape the BackEnd pass "Lower AMX type for Load/Store" I think that is a traditional backend problem that the pass will just have to be updated to deal with. > Hi @lebedev.ri Do you think the target-special type (X86_AMXTy) broken the > beauty of target-independent code at mid-end ? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D98757/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D98757 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
