Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "legalizeopsneedingnewtyp".
Did you mean:
legalizeopsneedingnewtypes
2009 May 22
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
...on x86. It
> passes regression tests except for one failure due to a missing
> implementation of legalization for EXTRACT_SUBVECTOR where both types
> are legal.
Should it be named something other than LegalizeVectors then,
since it handles more than just vectors? Perhaps something
like LegalizeOpsNeedingNewTypes?
I haven't looked into details, but I think the approach
in the patch looks reasonable. Adding yet another pass is
somewhat undesirable, though it's better than having two
type legalizers, and better than having a complicated
scheme to call back into LegalizeTypes. And we can always
revi...
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