Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "getshiftamountti".
Did you mean:
getshiftamountty
2015 Aug 19
3
[RFC] Improving integer divide optimization (related to D12082)
Hello LLVM, A recent commit creates the isIntDivCheap() target query.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12082
The current approach has a couple shortcomings.
First, when targets decide divide is cheap, the DAGCombiner ignores
obvious power-of-2 optimizations. In the targets I know, shifts are
cheaper than divides in both speed and size. The target cannot see
the value in the isIntDivCheap() call, so
2009 Dec 22
2
[LLVMdev] LegalizeDAG Error?
The LegalizeDAG.cpp file has this code in SelectionDAGLegalize::PromoteNode:
case ISD::BSWAP: {
unsigned DiffBits = NVT.getSizeInBits() - OVT.getSizeInBits();
Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, dl, NVT, Tmp1);
Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::BSWAP, dl, NVT, Tmp1);
Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::SRL, dl, NVT, Tmp1,
DAG.getConstant(DiffBits, TLI.getShiftAmountTy()));
2015 Aug 20
2
[RFC] Improving integer divide optimization (related to D12082)
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 3:48 PM, escha via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Steve King via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> In the targets I know, shifts are
>> cheaper than divides in both speed and size.
>
> From what I remember, udiv by
2009 Dec 22
0
[LLVMdev] LegalizeDAG Error?
On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:38 PMPST, Bill Wendling wrote:
> The LegalizeDAG.cpp file has this code in
> SelectionDAGLegalize::PromoteNode:
>
> case ISD::BSWAP: {
> unsigned DiffBits = NVT.getSizeInBits() - OVT.getSizeInBits();
> Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, dl, NVT, Tmp1);
> Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::BSWAP, dl, NVT, Tmp1);
> Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::SRL, dl,
2010 Aug 25
1
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Fix for ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit when shift amount is zero
Hello,
A while back I submitted a patch for this function. The patch, added in revision 90482, left the case of a shift by zero undefined. Attached is another patch to deal with that condition.
Thanks,
Javier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100824/a66bd3d8/attachment.html>
--------------
2009 May 21
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:
> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass?
> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would
> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction
> and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you
> anticipating something more
2009 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman
> <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector
>>
>> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from
>>
>> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant
2009 May 21
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:
>> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass?
>> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would
>> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction