================
@@ -25,6 +26,23 @@ TargetSubtargetInfo::TargetSubtargetInfo(
TargetSubtargetInfo::~TargetSubtargetInfo() = default;
+bool TargetSubtargetInfo::isIntrinsicSupported(unsigned IntrinsicID,
+ const CallBase &CB) const {
+ StringRef RequiredFeatures = Intrinsic::getRequiredTargetFeatures(
+ static_cast<Intrinsic::ID>(IntrinsicID));
+
+ if (RequiredFeatures.empty())
+ return true;
+
+ if (RequiredFeatures == Intrinsic::CustomTargetFeatures)
+ return isIntrinsicSupportedByTarget(IntrinsicID, CB);
+
+ auto [It, Inserted] = IntrinsicSupportCache.try_emplace(IntrinsicID);
+ if (Inserted)
+ It->second = checkFeatureExpression(RequiredFeatures);
----------------
shiltian wrote:
Right, but I see two issues:
- How do we represent the case where an intrinsic is always supported, but
different subtargets use different manglings, or support different arguments?
In that case, we'd need to explicitly introduce an extra target feature and add
it to all subtargets.
- Wouldn't it also be more expensive if an intrinsic is not supported at all,
since it adds an extra layer of checks?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/201470
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
