Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "d47559".
Did you mean:
d47159
2018 May 31
0
Deprecating ADDC/ADDE/SUBC/SUBE
On 2018-05-30 16:57, Amaury Séchet via llvm-dev wrote:
> These opcodes have been deprecated about a year ago, but still in use
> in various backend.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47422 I would like to change the behavior
> of the backend to not enable the use of these opcodes by default. The
> opcode remains usable by any backend that wish to use them, but that
> should
2018 May 30
3
Deprecating ADDC/ADDE/SUBC/SUBE
On 5/30/2018 11:28 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote:
> On 5/30/2018 1:16 PM, Friedman, Eli wrote:
>> 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
2018 May 30
5
Deprecating ADDC/ADDE/SUBC/SUBE
These opcodes have been deprecated about a year ago, but still in use in
various backend.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47422 I would like to change the behavior of
the backend to not enable the use of these opcodes by default. The opcode
remains usable by any backend that wish to use them, but that should limit
the situation where newer backend just use them as they are enabled by
default.
This