rampitec requested changes to this revision. rampitec added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
You cannot do it in a generic llvm code, it simply has no knowledge of what was the reason for BE's choice. ================ Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/AtomicExpandPass.cpp:598 + OptimizationRemark Remark(DEBUG_TYPE, "Passed", RMW->getFunction()); + Remark << "An unsafe hardware instruction was generated."; + return Remark; ---------------- arsenm wrote: > Unsafe is misleading, plus this is being too specific to AMDGPU Having UnsafeFPAtomicFlag does not automatically mean a HW instruction produced is unsafe. Moreover, you simply cannot know why this or that decision was done by a target method here. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106891/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106891 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
