https://github.com/davemgreen updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98196
>From b46d892a43b034dd515987f37441fc842710dc62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Haowei Wu
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:12:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "[C++20] [Modules] Always emit the inline builtins"
This
davemgreen wrote:
It is that bit of code, yeah. I don't know of a way to reproduce this without
logging into different machines with different sets of options and trying it.
If we had a way to test/mock that various /proc/cpuinfo files gave us the
correct results, that would be helpful in
https://github.com/davemgreen commented:
Did you consider emitting `llvm.fmin(llvm.fabs(x), llvm.fabs(y))`?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99041
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
davemgreen wrote:
Hi this sounds like a good idea to me. Note that the implementation of
getHostCPUFeatures isn't amazing for AArch64 at the moment, there was an
attempt to fix it up in #95694 (but thaat has gone a bit quiet). One point we
noticed is that it could end up turning "aes+sha2"
https://github.com/davemgreen commented:
Thanks this looks great. I've not checked the C / ACLE intrinsics though - I
will defer to @CarolineConcatto and @momchil-velikov for those parts if that is
OK.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96883
@@ -6420,6 +6420,76 @@ def : Pat<(v16i8 (int_aarch64_neon_tbx1 (v16i8 V128:$Rd),
let Predicates = [HasLUT] in {
defm LUT2 : BaseSIMDTableLookupIndexed2<"luti2">;
defm LUT4 : BaseSIMDTableLookupIndexed4<"luti4">;
+
+ def : Pat<(v16i8 (int_aarch64_neon_vluti2_lane (v8i8
@@ -2096,3 +2096,19 @@ let ArchGuard = "defined(__aarch64__) ||
defined(__arm64ec__)", TargetGuard = "r
def VLDAP1_LANE : WInst<"vldap1_lane", ".(c*!).I", "QUlQlUlldQdPlQPl">;
def VSTL1_LANE : WInst<"vstl1_lane", "v*(.!)I", "QUlQlUlldQdPlQPl">;
}
+
+//Lookup table read
davemgreen wrote:
Could you explain more about what broke? Are you using target(..) attributes?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96832
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Author: David Green
Date: 2024-06-21T09:26:44+01:00
New Revision: b635d690ed1e3fbebab9dee1b157fa380d3e9eba
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b635d690ed1e3fbebab9dee1b157fa380d3e9eba
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b635d690ed1e3fbebab9dee1b157fa380d3e9eba.diff
@@ -19,3 +19,19 @@
// RUN: %clang --target=arm64 -mlittle-endian -march=armv8.1a -### -c %s 2>&1
| FileCheck -check-prefix=ARM64-GENERICV81A %s
// RUN: %clang --target=arm64 -mlittle-endian -march=armv8.1-a -### -c %s 2>&1
| FileCheck -check-prefix=ARM64-GENERICV81A %s
//
@@ -140,89 +152,480 @@ def FeatureAES : Extension<
// compatibility, and now imply features SHA2 and AES, which was the
// "traditional" meaning of Crypto.
let FMVDependencies = "+aes,+sha2" in
-def FeatureCrypto : Extension<"crypto", "Crypto",
+def FeatureCrypto :
@@ -19,3 +19,19 @@
// RUN: %clang --target=arm64 -mlittle-endian -march=armv8.1a -### -c %s 2>&1
| FileCheck -check-prefix=ARM64-GENERICV81A %s
// RUN: %clang --target=arm64 -mlittle-endian -march=armv8.1-a -### -c %s 2>&1
| FileCheck -check-prefix=ARM64-GENERICV81A %s
//
davemgreen wrote:
I believe they were added so long ago that the default Expanding wasn't done at
the time. @efriedma-quic do you have more of an idea than that?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94559
___
cfe-commits mailing list
davemgreen wrote:
Usually when new ISD nodes are added they are expanded for all types, so that
every backend will get at least working code even if it is not optimal. The
targets can then come along and override the defaults for the types they are
interested in, to get better results.
For
davemgreen wrote:
If you remove tan from isTriviallyVectorizable it should prevent vectorization
in the short term.
It might be better to default FTAN to expand in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/64c9a1e1266ec7bc4c4896b2df116fa12dbacf15/llvm/lib/CodeGen/TargetLoweringBase.cpp#L960,
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95214
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -723,6 +746,9 @@ def ProcessorFeatures {
FeaturePerfMon, FeatureETE, FeatureTRBE,
FeatureSPE, FeatureMTE, FeatureSVE2BitPerm,
FeatureFP16FML, FeatureSPE_EEF];
+ list X925 =
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=armv8r-eabi -mcpu=cortex-r52 | FileCheck %s
--check-prefix=CHECK --check-prefix=USEAA
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=armv8r-eabi -mcpu=cortex-r52plus | FileCheck %s
--check-prefix=CHECK --check-prefix=USEAA
davemgreen wrote:
@@ -90,6 +90,8 @@ def ProcR7 : SubtargetFeature<"r7", "ARMProcFamily",
"CortexR7",
"Cortex-R7 ARM processors", []>;
def ProcR52 : SubtargetFeature<"r52", "ARMProcFamily", "CortexR52",
"Cortex-R52
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
LGTM, thanks
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94633
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/davemgreen edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94633
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
davemgreen wrote:
Yeah I had just seen that error message before you edited your comment. There
are some examples of neon I found in a quick search, which were presumably
added for AArch32:
https://github.com/davemgreen commented:
> LGTM. The main change to point out is that the target attribute will no
> longer accept internal feature names. I don't think it should ever have done
> so, but we should get input from others. @davemgreen? There are references to
> existing code in
@@ -863,6 +889,8 @@ def : ProcessorModel<"cortex-a720", NeoverseN2Model,
ProcessorFeatures.A720,
[TuneA720]>;
def : ProcessorModel<"cortex-a720ae", NeoverseN2Model,
ProcessorFeatures.A720AE,
[TuneA720AE]>;
+def :
@@ -877,6 +905,8 @@ def : ProcessorModel<"cortex-x3", NeoverseN2Model,
ProcessorFeatures.X3,
[TuneX3]>;
def : ProcessorModel<"cortex-x4", NeoverseN2Model, ProcessorFeatures.X4,
[TuneX4]>;
+def : ProcessorModel<"cortex-x925",
@@ -189,15 +189,15 @@ define i32 @shr(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
define i1 @outer_and1(i1 %a) {
-; check-label: @outer_and1(
-; check-not: call i1 @and1
+; check-LABEL: @outer_and1(
davemgreen wrote:
I've regenerated the check lines in
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ define i32 @test_orr_extract_from_mul_1(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
; CHECK-THUMB-NEXT:orrs r0, r1
; CHECK-THUMB-NEXT:bx lr
entry:
-; CHECk-THUMB: orrs r0, r1
davemgreen wrote:
I believe we can delete this line, it was left in from the old
@@ -189,15 +189,15 @@ define i32 @shr(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
define i1 @outer_and1(i1 %a) {
-; check-label: @outer_and1(
-; check-not: call i1 @and1
+; check-LABEL: @outer_and1(
davemgreen wrote:
Should all these be "CHECK"?
@@ -217,42 +217,42 @@ define <4 x i32> @load_v3i8_to_4xi32_const_offset_3(ptr
%src) {
}
define <4 x i32> @volatile_load_v3i8_to_4xi32(ptr %src) {
-; check-label: volatile_load_v3i8_to_4xi32:
+; check-LABEL: volatile_load_v3i8_to_4xi32:
davemgreen wrote:
I
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ define signext i8 @test1(i32 %A) {
; CHECK-V7: @ %bb.0:
; CHECK-V7-NEXT:sbfx r0, r0, #8, #8
; CHECK-V7-NEXT:bx lr
-; CHECk-V7: sbfx r0, r0, #8, #8
+; CHECK-V7: sbfx r0, r0, #8, #8
davemgreen wrote:
I believe we can delete this
https://github.com/davemgreen commented:
The Arm/AArch64 tests looks OK for the most part. I might be able to help with
some of them if that is easier than trying to sort them all here.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91854
___
cfe-commits
https://github.com/davemgreen edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91854
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
davemgreen wrote:
Rust
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/79734f1db8dbe322192dea32c0f6b80ab14c4c1d/compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/llvm_util.rs#L229)
and zig
(https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/44db92d1ca90c9cfdfb29fe46f04ff8f11c80901/lib/std/Target/aarch64.zig#L43)
are two examples of
davemgreen wrote:
@tmatheson-arm reached out and we have a bit of a conversation internally. I do
think that there is too much going on in this one pr to be sensible to review,
but from what I've looked at my main points I think are:
- Some AEK names get renamed in ways I would not expect
davemgreen wrote:
> which change? Specifying -mcpu=cortex-r52 will behave the same way as before.
> The original manual for the R52 provided for a no-neon sp-only variant, and
> they exist in the wild, and this lets "architecture-generic" builds
> automatically support both.
I just meant the
davemgreen wrote:
> This is already split into 18 commits, I don't think there's any reason to
> split it into 18 PRs, since comments on one of them likely apply to the
> others.
I disagree. This is going to be awkward for a lot of users of llvm and contains
at least some details I don't
davemgreen wrote:
IMO This patch looks far too large to sensibly review and needs to be split up.
A lot of the changes don't really looks like mechanical renamings, and it is
hard to see how they would not break existing uses of llvm arch64 target
features?
davemgreen wrote:
Hi - We've ran into a couple of places where this causes problems, one of them
in running Spec as above. Is it possible to turn off this error for older
codebases with a flag, turning it into a warning? It doesn't seem like a very
useful error if it applies to code that is
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
Thanks. LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90440
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -632,7 +632,18 @@ inline constexpr CpuInfo CpuInfos[] = {
AArch64::AEK_PAUTH, AArch64::AEK_SVE2BITPERM,
AArch64::AEK_FLAGM, AArch64::AEK_PERFMON,
AArch64::AEK_PREDRES,
@@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ void AArch64Subtarget::initializeProperties(bool
HasMinSize) {
case CortexA78AE:
case CortexA78C:
case CortexR82:
+ case CortexR82AE:
davemgreen wrote:
Can you move both of these into the block with CortexA55? It has always been in
@@ -632,7 +632,18 @@ inline constexpr CpuInfo CpuInfos[] = {
AArch64::AEK_PAUTH, AArch64::AEK_SVE2BITPERM,
AArch64::AEK_FLAGM, AArch64::AEK_PERFMON,
AArch64::AEK_PREDRES,
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
Thanks. I didn't check the enabled features but the tunings look good to me.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90143
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -447,6 +447,16 @@ def TuneNeoverseN2 : SubtargetFeature<"neoversen2",
"ARMProcFamily", "NeoverseN2
FeatureEnableSelectOptimize,
FeaturePredictableSelectIsExpensive]>;
+def TuneNeoverseN3 :
davemgreen wrote:
I'm not sure I would make this change, mostly due to it potentially causing a
break for existing users and making performance worse, but can see the
reasoning. I am willing to defer to others if they have an opinion.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88287
davemgreen wrote:
As far as I understand this will remove the tuning we do for cortex-r52 when
using armv8r, which will mean a little less performance but the tuning features
in the Arm backend are not handled as well as they could be.
Can you add release note explaining what will change?
davemgreen wrote:
Does this disable neon by default for cortex-r52? If so I don't think it should
be doing that, it would be a break in the existing behaviour, and should at
least be in the release notes.
The general rule for -mcpu options is that they should (roughly) enable the
maximum set
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
Thanks. LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85401
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ class AArch64Subtarget final : public AArch64GenSubtargetInfo
{
CortexA55,
CortexA510,
CortexA520,
+CortexA520AE,
davemgreen wrote:
These might not be worth adding, considering they should be the same as
CortexA520, and
@@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ Changes to Interprocedural Optimizations
Changes to the AArch64 Backend
--
+* Added support for Cortex-A520AE and Cortex-A720AE CPUs.
davemgreen wrote:
Could this have Cortex-A78AE too?
https://github.com/davemgreen commented:
Hi - I think this looks sensible, considering that long double == fp128. Should
we be doing the same for other OS's in this file too?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85070
___
cfe-commits mailing
davemgreen wrote:
I would also personally add Armv6 too for consistency, but don't have a strong
opinion.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82400
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -305,6 +305,17 @@ X86 Support
Arm and AArch64 Support
^^^
+- ARMv7+ targets now default to allowing unaligned access, except Armv6-M, and
+ Armv8-M without the Main Extension. Baremetal targets should check that the
+ new default will work with their
@@ -22,6 +22,12 @@
// RUN: %clang -target armv7-windows -### %s 2> %t
// RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-UNALIGNED-ARM < %t %s
+// RUN: %clang --target=armv6 -### %s 2> %t
+// RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-ALIGNED-ARM < %t %s
+
+// RUN: %clang --target=armv7 -### %s
https://github.com/davemgreen edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82400
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/davemgreen commented:
> Unaligned accesses require that SCTLR.A is 0, SCTLR.U is 1, and that the
> memory in question is configured as "normal" memory. Almost all operating
> systems do in fact configure their registers/memory this way, but on
> baremetal it's not really a
@@ -895,19 +895,17 @@ llvm::ARM::FPUKind arm::getARMTargetFeatures(const Driver
,
// defaults this bit to 0 and handles it as a system-wide (not
// per-process) setting. It is therefore safe to assume that ARMv7+
// Linux targets support unaligned accesses. The
davemgreen wrote:
Hi - I like the change. We have this code in the downstream compiler, which
also enables this for Armv6, but specifically disables it for v6m and
v8m.baseline.
```
if (VersionNum < 6 ||
Triple.getSubArch() == llvm::Triple::SubArchType::ARMSubArch_v6m ||
davemgreen wrote:
I'm a little worried people might be relying on the existing behaviour, with
both clang and GCC having this wrong for a while. If we are going to do it can
you add a release note to clang explaining the new behaviour?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81493
@@ -201,17 +201,27 @@ define dso_local void @rv_marker_3() personality ptr
@__gxx_personality_v0 {
; GISEL-NEXT:bl _objc_object
; GISEL-NEXT: Ltmp1:
; GISEL-NEXT: ; %bb.1: ; %invoke.cont
-; GISEL-NEXT:ldp x29, x30, [sp, #16] ; 16-byte Folded Reload
+; GISEL-NEXT:
davemgreen wrote:
I think this is probably OK for Arm & AArch64. In the long run we should
ideally be adding better extract subvector costs, but this patch moves the cost
in that direction.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79837
___
davemgreen wrote:
I see. The issue is that the opposite is often true as well - if we add a
target specific intrinsic for this then, whilst we get a single instruction
being emitted, we don't see all the other optimizations that the compiler can
and should be performing.
Things like constant
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
Thanks. LGTM too.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79614
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
davemgreen wrote:
OK. We would not usually add intrinsics like this without a strong motivating
case, that could not be optimized in some other way. It is better to use target
independent options when available, and inline assembly is available as a
fallback if it is really needed. But I
davemgreen wrote:
Hello. Can you explain why this is needed, as opposed to using the equivalent
shift/and/ors?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79672
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
davemgreen wrote:
It looks like this needs to update testAArch64CPUArchList too. Otherwise it LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79614
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
https://github.com/ARM-software/acle/pull/279 was committed recently, where I
think this lines up with the final version of it. I think this LGTM in that
case.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75516
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77555
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
Thanks. LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75440
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
Thanks for the updates. From what I can tell this LGTM, but it will need a
rebase.
You might want to commit it with the option disabled, and then flip the switch
in a followup to avoid the commit-revert cycles in case there are any
https://github.com/davemgreen edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72273
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
davemgreen wrote:
If you can make armv9-a work the same as armv8-a and add some tests for it then
this LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75440
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -836,6 +837,70 @@ void ARMTargetInfo::getTargetDefines(const LangOptions
,
if (Opts.RWPI)
Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_RWPI", "1");
+ // Macros for enabling co-proc intrinsics
+ uint64_t FeatureCoprocBF = 0;
+ switch (ArchKind) {
+ default:
+break;
+ case
https://github.com/davemgreen edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75440
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -756,6 +756,58 @@ __arm_st64bv0(void *__addr, data512_t __value) {
__builtin_arm_mops_memset_tag(__tagged_address, __value, __size)
#endif
+/* Coprocessor Intrinsics */
+#if defined(__ARM_FEATURE_COPROC)
+
+#if (__ARM_FEATURE_COPROC & 0x1)
+
+#if (__ARM_ARCH != 8)
@@ -836,6 +837,70 @@ void ARMTargetInfo::getTargetDefines(const LangOptions
,
if (Opts.RWPI)
Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_RWPI", "1");
+ // Macros for enabling co-proc intrinsics
+ uint64_t FeatureCoprocBF = 0;
+ switch (ArchKind) {
+ default:
+break;
+ case
@@ -836,6 +837,70 @@ void ARMTargetInfo::getTargetDefines(const LangOptions
,
if (Opts.RWPI)
Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_RWPI", "1");
+ // Macros for enabling co-proc intrinsics
+ uint64_t FeatureCoprocBF = 0;
+ switch (ArchKind) {
+ default:
+break;
+ case
https://github.com/davemgreen commented:
Thanks. This is looking good to me. I just have a few comments about different
architecture revisions.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75440
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
davemgreen wrote:
Thanks for doing this.
I think that __ARM_FEATURE_COPROC should be a bitfield, as defined in
https://arm-software.github.io/acle/main/acle.html#coprocessor-intrinsics. That
would remove the need for the other macros.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75440
davemgreen wrote:
This is the downstream code we have:
https://gist.github.com/davemgreen/e7ade833274a60e975e67a66eda7cb44
Note that the __ARM_TARGET_COPROC_XYZ macros are probably wrong. They should be
__ARM_FEATURE_COPROC bitfield macros according to the ACLE.
Can you make use of some of
davemgreen wrote:
Let me try and get the downstream version, you might be able to pick up some
things from it. A test at least should probably be present.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75440
___
cfe-commits mailing list
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
https://github.com/davemgreen commented:
Thanks. I think it is worth trying to get this in. I already see it triggering
in a number of places, it might be worth working on making it a little more
generic in followup patches if we can, but there is already quite a bit going
on.
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
@@ -0,0 +1,816 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
https://github.com/davemgreen edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72273
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
davemgreen wrote:
It looks like there is a downstream implementation of this that was never
upstreamed. Perhaps someone can fish it out for you to show how it looked? It
might be using the wrong predefined macro, but does have some tests.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75440
@@ -81,6 +81,15 @@ static bool DecodeAArch64Features(const Driver , StringRef
text,
else
return false;
+// +jsconv and +complxnum implies +neon and +fp-armv8
davemgreen wrote:
I believe this ideally would not be in the driver, as it does not
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request.
With that fixed, and from the perf Ive seen, this LGTM. Thanks
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71538
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
davemgreen wrote:
Thanks. It sounds like there are not a lot of code changes, which is a good
sign. I didn't expect the debug problems though.
I'll try and take a look at the patch. Perhaps you are right that we need a new
method for the debug info to use.
@@ -0,0 +1,839 @@
+//===- AArch64LoopIdiomTransform.cpp - Loop idiom recognition
-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
