lebedev.ri added a comment. In D62850#1529081 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62850#1529081>, @russell.gallop wrote:
> > .. or? > > I'm not sure what you mean. > > > Is this fixing a current test failure? > > No. The test is not failing, but it is not doing what was intended as these > builtins are for generating the immediate form of the corresponding > instruction and they were generating actually generating a register form. Then the test should be failing? Or is the current form also legal? > This test doesn't check the instructions generated are correct, but fixing > that is a bigger task... In D62850#1529197 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62850#1529197>, @russell.gallop wrote: > > Is the compiler missing a check that these parameters are immediates? > > I don't think that there can be a check, or this would have been noticed. > > I don't know whether this is possible and/or desirable. Do users use one > version of the builtin and want the compiler to decide whether to use the > immediate form? See https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#parameter-attributes `immarg` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62850/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62850 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
