search for: mibundleoperators

...convinced that as soon as we decide for a scheme with or without BUNDLE instruction we should remove all but one iterator (or at least write a long comment on the other iterator why you should not use it in most situation). Whatever the result it should use a C++ style iterator so at the very least MIBundleOperators needs to be rewritten for that. > >> >>> The last one appears to be necessary in a world without the initial BUNDLE >>> instruction repeating all the operands inside the bundle. In a setting where >>> finalization happens as a separate pass at the end of regist...

...convinced that as soon as we decide for a scheme with or without BUNDLE instruction we should remove all but one iterator (or at least write a long comment on the other iterator why you should not use it in most situation). Whatever the result it should use a C++ style iterator so at the very least MIBundleOperators needs to be rewritten for that. > >> The last one appears to be necessary in a world without the initial BUNDLE >> instruction repeating all the operands inside the bundle. In a setting where >> finalization happens as a separate pass at the end of register allocation this &g...

> On Oct 27, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > == BUNDLE instruction / operands == > For many backend passes a bundle can appear as a single unit. However one important tool > here is having an iterator over all operands of this unit. > > The original RFC indicates that to achieve this without changing a big number > of passes an

I am using machine instruction bundles [1] before register allocation. This appears not to be too common today and I'd really like some input on the intentions and plans of the current system. And would like some input on clean up proposals. [1] I am currently experimenting to use machine instruction bundles to reliably form macroop fusion opportunities without spills, reloads, splits or