On 21 September 2010 21:16, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:> It's referring to the arm.neon.vabds intrinsic, which is different than the old vabal intrinsic.Ok, sorry, those were the ones I was referring to: @llvm.arm.neon.* intrinsics. Is it polluting too much to add the few last (llvm.arm.neon.vadd, llvm.arm.neon.vsub)? It makes it a bit easier to generate neon instructions in the front-end if everything is an LLVM intrinsic... -- cheers, --renato http://systemcall.org/ Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
On Sep 21, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Renato Golin wrote:> On 21 September 2010 21:16, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: >> It's referring to the arm.neon.vabds intrinsic, which is different than the old vabal intrinsic. > > Ok, sorry, those were the ones I was referring to: @llvm.arm.neon.* intrinsics. > > Is it polluting too much to add the few last (llvm.arm.neon.vadd, > llvm.arm.neon.vsub)? It makes it a bit easier to generate neon > instructions in the front-end if everything is an LLVM intrinsic...No, please don't add any more NEON intrinsics.
On 21 September 2010 21:35, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:> No, please don't add any more NEON intrinsics.Ok, thanks. -- cheers, --renato http://systemcall.org/ Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm