dmgreen added subscribers: samparker, dmgreen.
dmgreen added a comment.
Sam has been looking at extending masked loads and stores in D68337
<https://reviews.llvm.org/D68337> and related patches. There looks like there
would be some overlap with this, especially in the target independent parts.
Make sure you co-ordinate with him.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp:10393
+ ((!LegalOperations && !cast<MaskedLoadSDNode>(N0)->isVolatile()) ||
+ TLI.isLoadExtLegal(ISD::SEXTLOAD, VT, EVT))) {
+ MaskedLoadSDNode *LN0 = cast<MaskedLoadSDNode>(N0);
----------------
I'm not convinced that just because a sext load is legal and a masked load is
legal, that a sext masked load is always legal.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64SVEInstrInfo.td:1077
+
+ def _default_z : Pat<(Ty (Load GPR64:$base, (PredTy PPR:$gp),
(SVEUndef))),
+ (RegImmInst PPR:$gp, GPR64:$base, (i64 0))>;
----------------
What if the passthru isn't undef?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64TargetTransformInfo.h:151
+ bool isLegalMaskedLoad(Type *DataType) {
+ return ST->hasSVE();
+ }
----------------
This can handle all masked loads? Of any type, extended into any other type,
with any alignment?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64TargetTransformInfo.h:153
+ }
+ bool isLegalMaskedStore(Type *DataType) {
+ return ST->hasSVE();
----------------
This patch doesn't handle stores yet.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/SVEInstrFormats.td:296
+def SVEUndef : ComplexPattern<i64, 0, "SelectUndef", []>;
+
----------------
Can this just use "undef"?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68877/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68877
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
