search for: fmaxnum

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "fmaxnum".

Did you mean: maxnum
2019 Jan 02
5
Potential bug in SelectionDAGLegalize::ConvertNodeToLibcall()?
...c:24:22 Creating new node: t119: f64 = bitcast t118, /home/chmeee/freebsd/contrib/compiler-rt/lib/builtins/divdc3.c:24:22 Created libcall: t119: f64 = bitcast t118, /home/chmeee/freebsd/contrib/compiler-rt/lib/builtins/divdc3.c:24:22 Successfully converted node to libcall ... replacing: t38: f64 = fmaxnum t36, t37, /home/chmeee/freebsd/contrib/compiler-rt/lib/builtins/divdc3.c:24:22 with: t119: f64 = bitcast t118, /home/chmeee/freebsd/contrib/compiler-rt/lib/builtins/divdc3.c:24:22 Is this a real bug, or am I missing something in my patch? After spending quite a while on it I'm at a...
2019 Jan 03
3
Potential bug in SelectionDAGLegalize::ConvertNodeToLibcall()?
...The purpose of this being to legalize intermediate illegal types post-type legalization. Is there a better approach? Comments from anyone else? - Justin On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:39:59 -0500 Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote: > It sounds like the legalizer is lowering `fmaxnum` to a libcall > because it is not a legal node for `f64` and in doing so, it is > producing the `build_pair` to reassemble the results of the libcall. > And presumably, it is assuming that the new nodes do not need > legalization or something along those lines. > > Justin, it wou...
2019 Jan 04
2
Potential bug in SelectionDAGLegalize::ConvertNodeToLibcall()?
...ntermediate illegal types post-type legalization. Is there a better approach? Comments from anyone else? - Justin On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:39:59 -0500 Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com<mailto:nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com>> wrote: > It sounds like the legalizer is lowering `fmaxnum` to a libcall > because it is not a legal node for `f64` and in doing so, it is > producing the `build_pair` to reassemble the results of the libcall. > And presumably, it is assuming that the new nodes do not need > legalization or something along those lines. > > Justin, it woul...
2019 Jan 04
2
Potential bug in SelectionDAGLegalize::ConvertNodeToLibcall()?
...legalization. >> >> Is there a better approach? Comments from anyone else? >> >> - Justin >> >> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:39:59 -0500 >> Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > It sounds like the legalizer is lowering `fmaxnum` to a libcall >> > because it is not a legal node for `f64` and in doing so, it is >> > producing the `build_pair` to reassemble the results of the libcall. >> > And presumably, it is assuming that the new nodes do not need >> > legalization or something along th...
2020 Apr 08
7
RFC: Promoting experimental reduction intrinsics to first class intrinsics
Hi, It’s been a few years now since I added some intrinsics for doing vector reductions. We’ve been using them exclusively on AArch64, and I’ve seen some traffic a while ago on list for other targets too. Sander did some work last year to refine the semantics after some discussion. Are we at the point where we can drop the “experimental” from the name? IMO all target should begin to transition