================
@@ -2861,12 +2861,17 @@ InstructionCost
VPExpressionRecipe::computeCost(ElementCount VF,
return Ctx.TTI.getMulAccReductionCost(false, Opcode, RedTy, SrcVecTy,
Ctx.CostKind);
- case ExpressionTypes::ExtMulAccReduction:
+ case ExpressionTypes::ExtNegatedMulAccReduction:
+ case ExpressionTypes::ExtMulAccReduction: {
+ if (ExpressionType == ExpressionTypes::ExtNegatedMulAccReduction &&
+ Opcode == Instruction::Add)
+ Opcode = Instruction::Sub;
----------------
sdesmalen-arm wrote:
Does it ever happen that `Opcode != Instruction::Add`? If not, this should be
written as:
```suggestion
case ExpressionTypes::ExtNegatedMulAccReduction:
assert(Opcode == Instruction::Add && "Unexpected opcode");
Opcode = Instruction::Sub;
LLVM_FALLTHROUGH;
case ExpressionTypes::ExtMulAccReduction:
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160154
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
