Am 16.10.19 um 01:20 schrieb Dave Airlie:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 00:55, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>>
>> Am 29.08.19 um 15:05 schrieb Jose Fonseca:
>>> This change is
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jose Fonseca
>>>
>>> Regarding follow up change, do you think the LLVM pattern is sane/doable?
>> Yes, sho
On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 00:55, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>
> Am 29.08.19 um 15:05 schrieb Jose Fonseca:
> > This change is
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jose Fonseca
> >
> > Regarding follow up change, do you think the LLVM pattern is sane/doable?
> Yes, should be doable and not too bad (I did not verify
Am 29.08.19 um 15:05 schrieb Jose Fonseca:
> This change is
>
> Reviewed-by: Jose Fonseca
>
> Regarding follow up change, do you think the LLVM pattern is sane/doable?
Yes, should be doable and not too bad (I did not verify that what we're
doing doesn't actually get recognized, since it's the
This change is
Reviewed-by: Jose Fonseca
Regarding follow up change, do you think the LLVM pattern is sane/doable?
If not we should try ask them to reconsider relying strictly upon pattern
matching. I get the feeling upstream LLVM is throwing the baby with the water
with these changes. I
Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 05:37, wrote:
>
> From: Roland Scheidegger
>
> LLVM 7.0 ditched the pmulu intrinsics.
> This is only a trivial patch to use the fallback code instead.
> It'll likely produce atrocious code since the pattern doesn't match what
> llvm itself uses in
From: Roland Scheidegger
LLVM 7.0 ditched the pmulu intrinsics.
This is only a trivial patch to use the fallback code instead.
It'll likely produce atrocious code since the pattern doesn't match what
llvm itself uses in its autoupgrade paths, hence the pattern won't be
recognized.
Should fix htt
