search for: log_f32

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "log_f32".

[RFC][VECLIB] how should we legalize VECLIB calls?
2018 Jul 02
2
[RFC][VECLIB] how should we legalize VECLIB calls?
...:LOG_FINITE_F64, > RTLIB::LOG_FINITE_F80, > RTLIB::LOG_FINITE_F128, > RTLIB::LOG_FINITE_PPCF128)); > else > Results.push_back(ExpandFPLibCall(Node, RTLIB::LOG_F32, > RTLIB::LOG_F64, > RTLIB::LOG_F80, RTLIB::LOG_F128, > RTLIB::LOG_PPCF128)); > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Saito, Hideki <hideki.saito at intel.com> > wrote: > >>...
[RFC][VECLIB] how should we legalize VECLIB calls?
2018 Jun 29
2
[RFC][VECLIB] how should we legalize VECLIB calls?
Ashutosh, Thanks for the repy. Related earlier topic on this appears in the review of the SVML patch (@mmasten). Adding few names from there. https://reviews.llvm.org/D19544 There, I see Hal's review comment "let's start only with the directly-legal calls". Apparently, what we have right now in the trunk is "not legal enough". I'll work on the patch to stop
[RFC][VECLIB] how should we legalize VECLIB calls?
2018 Jul 02
2
[RFC][VECLIB] how should we legalize VECLIB calls?
...:LOG_FINITE_F64, > RTLIB::LOG_FINITE_F80, > RTLIB::LOG_FINITE_F128, > RTLIB::LOG_FINITE_PPCF128)); > else > Results.push_back(ExpandFPLibCall(Node, RTLIB::LOG_F32, > RTLIB::LOG_F64, > RTLIB::LOG_F80, RTLIB::LOG_F128, > RTLIB::LOG_PPCF128)); > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Saito, Hideki <hideki.saito at intel.com> &...
[RFC][VECLIB] how should we legalize VECLIB calls?
2018 Jul 02
8
[RFC][VECLIB] how should we legalize VECLIB calls?
...                 RTLIB::LOG_FINITE_F80, >                                         RTLIB::LOG_FINITE_F128, >                                         > RTLIB::LOG_FINITE_PPCF128)); >     else >       Results.push_back(ExpandFPLibCall(Node, RTLIB::LOG_F32, > RTLIB::LOG_F64, >                                         RTLIB::LOG_F80, > RTLIB::LOG_F128, >                                         RTLIB::LOG_PPCF128)); > >   > >   > >   > >   > >...
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
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
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
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
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
2009 May 21
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
...SIN_F64, - RTLIB::SIN_F80, RTLIB::SIN_PPCF128); - break; - case ISD::FCOS: - LC = GetFPLibCall(VT, RTLIB::COS_F32, RTLIB::COS_F64, - RTLIB::COS_F80, RTLIB::COS_PPCF128); - break; - case ISD::FLOG: - LC = GetFPLibCall(VT, RTLIB::LOG_F32, RTLIB::LOG_F64, - RTLIB::LOG_F80, RTLIB::LOG_PPCF128); - break; - case ISD::FLOG2: - LC = GetFPLibCall(VT, RTLIB::LOG2_F32, RTLIB::LOG2_F64, - RTLIB::LOG2_F80, RTLIB::LOG2_PPCF128); - break; - case ISD::FLOG10: - LC = GetFPLib...