craig.topper added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Headers/mmintrin.h:55 /// -/// This intrinsic corresponds to the <c> VMOVD / MOVD </c> instruction. +/// This intrinsic corresponds to the <c> MOVD </c> instruction. /// ---------------- kromanova wrote: > I tried clang on Linux, x86_64, and if -mavx option is passed, we generate > VMOVD, if this option is omitted, we generate MOVD. > I think I understand the rational behind this change (namely, to keep MOVD, > but remove VMOVD), > since this intrinsic should use MMX registers and shouldn't have > corresponding AVX instruction(s). > > However, that's what we generate at the moment when -mavx is passed (I > suspect because our MMX support is limited) > vmovd %edi, %xmm0 > > Since we are writing the documentation for clang compiler, we should document > what clang compiler is doing, not what is should be doing. > Craig, what do you think? Should we revert back to VMOVD/MOVD? > We can change it back to VMOVD/MOVD https://reviews.llvm.org/D41517 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
