Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "106868".
Did you mean:
106568
2020 Jun 15
5
[RFC] Integer Intrinsics for abs, in unsigned/signed min/max
...as being canonical and desperately trying not to break/loose track of them,
but instead do a sensible thing and actually make them first class citizens,
by introducing intrinsics and use then throughout.
This has been previously discussed in:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106868.html
Proposed LangRef semantics: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81829
Proposed alive2 implementation: https://github.com/AliveToolkit/alive2/pull/353
Roman.
2017 May 16
2
[RFC] Canonicalization of unsigned subtraction with saturation
On 5/16/2017 6:30 AM, Sanjay Patel wrote:
> Thanks for posting this question, Julia.
>
> I had a similar question about a signed min/max variant here:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106868.html
>
> The 2nd version in each case contains a canonical max/min
> representation in IR, and this could enable more IR analysis.
> A secondary advantage is that the backend recognizes the max/min in
> the second IR form when creating DAG nodes,
> and this directly affects isel...
2017 May 16
2
[RFC] Canonicalization of unsigned subtraction with saturation
Hi,
This message is a result of a discussion of backend optimization for sub(max) pattern(https://reviews.llvm.org/D25987), which can be either converted to unsigned min-max or unsigned saturation instruction(if the target supports it).
Currently these versions of the code produce different IR(and we need to manage both types in backend):
(1.16)
void foo(unsigned short *p, unsigned short max,