dmgreen accepted this revision. dmgreen added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D68877#1718729 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68877#1718729>, @kmclaughlin wrote: > There is not yet support for vector selects, so for this patch the intention > was that any passthru which is not all zero or undef would result in a > selection failure. > Do you think it would acceptable to handle different passthrus in a future > patch which also implements vector selects for SVE? Yeah OK. That makes sense. I remember the same chicken and egg from MVE. We ended up doing them the other way around there. Can you try and add a FIXME comment somewhere? Otherwise LGTM. ================ Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/SVEInstrFormats.td:4753 + let hasSideEffects = 1, hasNoSchedulingInfo = 1, mayLoad = 1 in { + def "" : Pseudo<(outs listty:$Zt), (ins PPR3bAny:$Pg, GPR64sp:$Rn, simm4s1:$imm4), []>, + PseudoInstExpansion<(!cast<Instruction>(NAME # _REAL) listty:$Zt, PPR3bAny:$Pg, GPR64sp:$Rn, simm4s1:$imm4)>; ---------------- kmclaughlin wrote: > dmgreen wrote: > > Can you explain why is this pseudo is needed, exactly? I feel that using > > pseudos is often the wrong solution to a problem (it may be required here, > > I'm just sure why exactly). > > > > We currently seem to generate ld1b (for example), over ldnf1b. Is there > > ever a time that we expect to generate a nf load? > The pseudo was a workaround that was added downstream for non-faulting loads, > but it is not needed here. Righteo. We know where to find it if it turns out we do need them. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68877/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68877 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
