[LLVMdev] NEON intrinsics

Bob Wilson
Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:19:21 -0000

On Sep 21, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Renato Golin wrote:

> Third question: (sorry)
>
> NEON intrinsics. Some of them are direct operations (types are the
> same, return type is the same), some of them are intrinsics.
>
> So far so good, but why not make them all intrinsics? I mean, it's ok
> to have ADD <i8 x 8> transform into a NEON operation, but why not
have
> *also* the intrinsic for VADD? I've seen some intrinsics get changed
> to raw instructions in the validator, VADD and others could also be
> done the same way.
>
> If no one objects, I'll create them in the table gen files. It's
not
> important, just would be good to keep consistency (and easier to
> generate IR).

There's no reason to have clang builtins for operations that can be
represented directly.  It just bloats the compiler.  Please don't do that.