search for: intronlywrite

> On Mar 21, 2016, at 9:14 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > >> On Mar 21, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 19.03.2016 16:25, Mehdi Amini wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Can you elaborate what is the impact at the IR level? >>> If the point is just about

On 19.03.2016 16:25, Mehdi Amini wrote: > Hi, > > Can you elaborate what is the impact at the IR level? > If the point is just about how you lower for you target, why are you needing an IR level attribute? You backend if free to specialize the lowering for any intrinsic regardless the IR level attributes. As I explained in my reply to Philip, what I really need is a way to get

Hi, I'd like to draw your attention to http://reviews.llvm.org/D18291, in which I propose a new intrinsic property for intrinsics that are lowered to instructions that mayStore, but are neither mayLoad nor hasSideEffects. This is relevant for AMDGPU, where we have store instructions that don't operate on pointers. The codegen backend understands these perfectly well as stores, and so

On 03/21/2016 08:54 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: > On 19.03.2016 14:47, Philip Reames wrote: >> I'm generally in support of this change. I haven't looked at the patch >> yet, but the direction seems worthwhile. >> >> Note that we already have a writeonly predicate in a few places in the >> code (BasicAA being one). If we do introduce the new intrinsic

On 19.03.2016 14:47, Philip Reames wrote: > I'm generally in support of this change. I haven't looked at the patch > yet, but the direction seems worthwhile. > > Note that we already have a writeonly predicate in a few places in the > code (BasicAA being one). If we do introduce the new intrinsic > property, we should refactor all of these places to use the new >