search for: global_isel

...(which also includes Linaro) will have a lot less work. But there's a cost to be paid, and that cost is a lot higher on the ARM/AArch64 side than x86, just because most developers use an x86 as their main machine. > Still, as a strawman proposal - would it make sense to add > LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL_EXPERIMENTAL, or something of that sort? The more > mature ports will build under LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL (which will be enabled > by default), the less mature ones only under > LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL_EXPERIMENTAL (which won't be), and moving a port from > GLOBAL_ISEL_EXPERIMENTAL to...

...will have a lot less work. But there's a cost to be > paid, and that cost is a lot higher on the ARM/AArch64 side than x86, > just because most developers use an x86 as their main machine. > > > > Still, as a strawman proposal - would it make sense to add > > LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL_EXPERIMENTAL, or something of that sort? The more > > mature ports will build under LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL (which will be > enabled > > by default), the less mature ones only under > > LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL_EXPERIMENTAL (which won't be), and moving a port > from > &g...

...org> wrote: > > On 14 January 2017 at 01:54, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Now, four backends (if I am counting right: X86, ARM, AArch64, AMDGPU) are working on bringing-up GlobalISel, I’d like to switch the default of the LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL variable in CMake, such that the framework gets built by default. > > Hi Quentin, > > I'm not extremely confident in a full switch right now, mainly due to > Michael's concerns. The ARM port is in its initial stage and there > could still be many refactorings and destruc...

.... But there's a cost to be >> paid, and that cost is a lot higher on the ARM/AArch64 side than x86, >> just because most developers use an x86 as their main machine. >> >> >> > Still, as a strawman proposal - would it make sense to add >> > LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL_EXPERIMENTAL, or something of that sort? The more >> > mature ports will build under LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL (which will be enabled >> > by default), the less mature ones only under >> > LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL_EXPERIMENTAL (which won't be), and moving a port from >&...

...to be >>> paid, and that cost is a lot higher on the ARM/AArch64 side than x86, >>> just because most developers use an x86 as their main machine. >>> >>> >>> > Still, as a strawman proposal - would it make sense to add >>> > LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL_EXPERIMENTAL, or something of that sort? The more >>> > mature ports will build under LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL (which will be enabled >>> > by default), the less mature ones only under >>> > LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL_EXPERIMENTAL (which won't be), and moving a por...