search for: annnoying

...ecessary since ADDCARRY already includes UADDO's functionality, so if target sets UADDO to Expand, it could be replaced with ADDCARRY. Targets can handle both manually, but why should they have to? I was actually working on using ADDCARRY on Hexagon and I find the UADDO generation a little annnoying. -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

On 5/30/2018 10:29 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: > For targets where ADDCARRY and SUBCARRY are legal, would it make sense > to expand ADDC/UADDO/ADDE/etc. into ADDCARRY (and same for sub)? SelectionDAG will never generate ADDC/ADDE on targets where they aren't legal.  Targets which custom-lower ADDCARRY generally also custom-lower UADDO; not sure what sort of expansion

...already includes UADDO's functionality, so > if target sets UADDO to Expand, it could be replaced with ADDCARRY. > Targets can handle both manually, but why should they have to? > > I was actually working on using ADDCARRY on Hexagon and I find the > UADDO generation a little annnoying. > If the expansion of UADDO would be useful, patch welcome, I guess. (It isn't useful on architectures like ARM; we have to special-case UADDO anyway to generate "adds" instead of "adcs".) -Eli -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Cen...