search for: testv

...do it on the SDAG if we already do it in InstCombine?" And the short answer is it is quite possible that legalization will introduce scalarization code and a subsequent DAG combine creates an opportunity to remove the scalarization. Here is an example of that: define dso_local <2 x i64> @testv(<2 x i64> %a, <2 x i64> %b) { entry: %sexta = sext <2 x i64> %a to <2 x i128> %sextb = sext <2 x i64> %b to <2 x i128> %mul = mul nsw <2 x i128> %sexta, %sextb %shift = lshr <2 x i128> %mul, <i128 64, i128 64> %trunc = trunc <2 x i1...

...t in InstCombine?" And the short answer is it is quite possible that >> legalization will introduce scalarization code and a subsequent DAG combine >> creates an opportunity to remove the scalarization. Here is an example of >> that: >> define dso_local <2 x i64> @testv(<2 x i64> %a, <2 x i64> %b) { >> entry: >> %sexta = sext <2 x i64> %a to <2 x i128> >> %sextb = sext <2 x i64> %b to <2 x i128> >> %mul = mul nsw <2 x i128> %sexta, %sextb >> %shift = lshr <2 x i128> %mul, <i12...

.../5.8.5/IO/Socket/SSL.pm line 19 BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/IO/Socket/SSL.pm line 19. Compilation failed in require at ./imapsync line 357. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at ./imapsync line 357. imapsync , You can do : make install make testf make testv make all

I have added a few PPC-specific DAG combines in the past that follow this pattern on specific operations. Now that it appears that this would be useful to do on yet another operation, I'm wondering what people think about doing this in the target-independent DAG Combiner for any legal/custom operation on the target. TL; DR; The generic pattern would look like this: (build_vector (op