fhahn added a comment. In D98757#2633396 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98757#2633396>, @xiangzhangllvm wrote:
> In D98757#2631042 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98757#2631042>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > >> The ongoing special-casing of `X86_AMXTy` through the llvm due to the >> inability of the existing backend passes to handle certain llvm ir >> constructs. > > We have bring up it to llvm-dev. > BTW,** All the Type should see as target independent.** (Even it support by > less targets or 1 target) > > Current we see “ if (Ty.isVectorTy()) {…}” is make sense in Mid-End. > Why we can’t see “if (Ty.isX86_AMXTy()){…}” is make sense ? One thing to note is that there appears to be no documentation of `x86_amx` in the langref (maybe there is, but searching for `x86_amx` did not surface anything). Without that, making any decisions based on the type in general LLVM optimizations seems problematic, because the type is effectively not specified. 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
