Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "_mm_add_epi8".
Did you mean:
_mm_add_epi32
2011 Oct 28
2
[LLVMdev] instcombine does silly things with vector x+x
...version (llvm.x86.sse2.padds.b). I would just give
up and use inline assembly, but it seems I can't JIT that.
I'm using the latest llvm 3.1 from svn. I get similar behavior at
llvm.org/demo using the following equivalent C code:
#include <emmintrin.h>
__m128i f(__m128i a) {
return _mm_add_epi8(a, a);
}
The no-optimization compilation of this is better than the optimized version.
Any ideas? Should I just not use this pass?
- Andrew
2011 Oct 28
0
[LLVMdev] instcombine does silly things with vector x+x
...d just give
> up and use inline assembly, but it seems I can't JIT that.
>
> I'm using the latest llvm 3.1 from svn. I get similar behavior at
> llvm.org/demo using the following equivalent C code:
>
> #include <emmintrin.h>
> __m128i f(__m128i a) {
> return _mm_add_epi8(a, a);
> }
>
> The no-optimization compilation of this is better than the optimized version.
>
> Any ideas? Should I just not use this pass?
>
> - Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu...
2011 Oct 30
1
[LLVMdev] instcombine does silly things with vector x+x
...d just give
> up and use inline assembly, but it seems I can't JIT that.
>
> I'm using the latest llvm 3.1 from svn. I get similar behavior at
> llvm.org/demo using the following equivalent C code:
>
> #include <emmintrin.h>
> __m128i f(__m128i a) {
> return _mm_add_epi8(a, a);
> }
>
> The no-optimization compilation of this is better than the optimized version.
>
> Any ideas? Should I just not use this pass?
>
> - Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu...