Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "db160fb4".
2013 Jan 25
0
[LLVMdev] TargetLowering vs. TargetTransform
>
> TargetTransform (TT) only has the free checks on types, while TargetLowering (TL) has on SDValue and destination type.
>
Yes. This is a limitation of the current API. The design decision behind it was that in many cases you want to know the cost of IR before you generate it.
For example, during vectorization you want to know how a particular IR would look if you were to vectorize
2013 Jan 26
1
[LLVMdev] TargetLowering vs. TargetTransform
...s
what you were saying before.
I'll give it a few tries and send to the list so we can discuss with more
concrete implementations.
cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130126/db160fb4/attachment.html>
2013 Jan 25
2
[LLVMdev] TargetLowering vs. TargetTransform
On 25 January 2013 17:48, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
> I think that we need to improve ::isTruncateFree, ::isZextFree, etc to
> include all of the free conversions. Vector and Scalar.
>
Hi Nadav,
Yes, and the question is: TargetLowering's isZExtFree or TargetTransform's
isZExtFree?
TargetTransform (TT) only has the free checks on types, while
TargetLowering
2013 Jan 28
0
[LLVMdev] Testing canaries
...ive it a few tries and send to the list so we can discuss with more
> concrete implementations.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/attachments/20130126/db160fb4/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:22:45 +0100
> From: Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>
> To: Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com>
> Cc: Daniel Dunbar <daniel_dunbar at apple.com&g...