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