Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "ri64".
Did you mean:
i64
2011 Oct 07
6
[LLVMdev] Enhancing TableGen
...b),
> !strconcat(opcstr, "$r.f32\t$d, $a, $b"), []>;
> def rr64 : InstPTX<(outs RegF64:$d),
> (ins RndMode:$r, RegF64:$a, RegF64:$b),
> !strconcat(opcstr, "$r.f64\t$d, $a, $b"), []>;
> def ri64 : InstPTX<(outs RegF64:$d),
> (ins RndMode:$r, RegF64:$a, f64imm:$b),
> !strconcat(opcstr, "$r.f64\t$d, $a, $b"), []>;
> }
>
> As repeated many times on this thread, the most common operation that
> a .td file must support...
2011 Oct 07
0
[LLVMdev] Enhancing TableGen
...e:$r, RegF32:$a, f32imm:$b),
!strconcat(opcstr, "$r.f32\t$d, $a, $b"), []>;
def rr64 : InstPTX<(outs RegF64:$d),
(ins RndMode:$r, RegF64:$a, RegF64:$b),
!strconcat(opcstr, "$r.f64\t$d, $a, $b"), []>;
def ri64 : InstPTX<(outs RegF64:$d),
(ins RndMode:$r, RegF64:$a, f64imm:$b),
!strconcat(opcstr, "$r.f64\t$d, $a, $b"), []>;
}
As repeated many times on this thread, the most common operation that a .td file must support is looking up an instruction...
2011 Oct 07
0
[LLVMdev] Enhancing TableGen
...),
> binary_pattern<opcstrm "f32">.pattern, []>;
> def rr64 : InstPTX<(outs RegF64:$d),
> (ins RndMode:$r, RegF64:$a, RegF64:$b),
> binary_pattern<opcstrm "f64">.pattern, []>;
> def ri64 : InstPTX<(outs RegF64:$d),
> (ins RndMode:$r, RegF64:$a, f64imm:$b),
> binary_pattern<opcstrm "f64">.pattern, []>;
> }
>
> Would something like that be acceptable?
You are adding complexity for no benefit. Now I have t...
2011 Oct 07
6
[LLVMdev] Enhancing TableGen
Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> writes:
> David, we cannot accept the 'multidef' keyword. Please revert it.
Working on it now.
> We appreciate you thinking ahead about MIC, but we are against the
> massive refactoring and complicated abstraction scheme. We'll never
> accept those patches.
How about a less massive and complicated scheme? I think we can
make
2011 Oct 08
3
[LLVMdev] Enhancing TableGen
... binary_pattern<opcstrm "f32">.pattern, []>;
>> def rr64 : InstPTX<(outs RegF64:$d),
>> (ins RndMode:$r, RegF64:$a, RegF64:$b),
>> binary_pattern<opcstrm "f64">.pattern, []>;
>> def ri64 : InstPTX<(outs RegF64:$d),
>> (ins RndMode:$r, RegF64:$a, f64imm:$b),
>> binary_pattern<opcstrm "f64">.pattern, []>;
>> }
>>
>> Would something like that be acceptable?
>
> You are adding complexity f...