search for: isvolatileisnontempor

...> const Value *srcValue, int SVOff, > unsigned alignment, unsigned flags); > > and called like this: > > new (N) LoadSDNode(..., isVolatile|isNonTemporal); > > Thoughts? This sounds reasonable. I'd suggest using names like MemRefFlags rather than isVolatileisNonTemporal, but that's just a detail :-). My biggest concern is how this is encoded in the SDNode. It'd be good to avoid making MemSDNode bigger, but there are a variety of ways that exiting bits can be made available. NodeType doesn't need all 16 of its bits, for example, and OperandsNeedD...

...ent SDNode allocation strategy, making it > bigger will increase the allocation needed for all nodes. Ok. > > new (N) LoadSDNode(..., isVolatile|isNonTemporal); > > > > Thoughts? > > This sounds reasonable. I'd suggest using names like MemRefFlags rather > than isVolatileisNonTemporal, but that's just a detail :-). There's a pipe there. :) > My biggest concern is how this is encoded in the SDNode. It'd be > good to avoid making MemSDNode bigger, but there are a variety of ways > that exiting bits can be made available. NodeType doesn't need all 16...

Right now the MemSDNode keeps a volatile bit in the SubclassData to mark volatile memory operations. We have some changes we'd like to push back that adds a NonTemporal flag to MemSDNode to mark instructions where movnt (on x86) and other goodness can happen (we'll also add the TableGen patterns to properly select movnt). In our tree we simply added another flag to the MemSDNode

...gger will increase the allocation needed for all nodes. > > Ok. > > >>> new (N) LoadSDNode(..., isVolatile|isNonTemporal); >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> This sounds reasonable. I'd suggest using names like MemRefFlags >> rather >> than isVolatileisNonTemporal, but that's just a detail :-). > > There's a pipe there. :) Oops. I blame my font ;-). > >> My biggest concern is how this is encoded in the SDNode. It'd be >> good to avoid making MemSDNode bigger, but there are a variety of >> ways >> that exit...