Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "320dd391".
2012 Dec 11
0
[LLVMdev] Loads/Stores and MachineMemOperand
On 11 Dec 2012, at 21:00, Justin Holewinski wrote:
> I want to get some clarification on the exact semantics of the MachineMemOperand attached to memory-touching instructions. From what I understand, a MemSDNode has an associated MachineMemOperand and a MachineInstr can have zero or more attached MachineMemOperands.
>
> But what is the guarantee/constraint placed on
2012 Dec 11
1
[LLVMdev] Loads/Stores and MachineMemOperand
...gt;
> Clearing the value seems to be a very nasty thing to do, what is the
> meaning of this code?
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121211/320dd391/attachment.html>
2012 Dec 11
4
[LLVMdev] Loads/Stores and MachineMemOperand
I want to get some clarification on the exact semantics of the
MachineMemOperand attached to memory-touching instructions. From what I
understand, a MemSDNode has an associated MachineMemOperand and a
MachineInstr can have zero or more attached MachineMemOperands.
But what is the guarantee/constraint placed on optimization/codegen passes
for maintaining the contents of a MachineMemOperand? In