Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "riscvinstrinfo_separate_pat".
Did you mean:
riscvinstrinfo_separate_pats
2017 Aug 18
5
RFC/bikeshedding: Separation of instruction and pattern definitions in LLVM backends
...re welcome!
I've demonstrated both the "conventional" approach
<https://gist.github.com/asb/0c61ebc131076c6186052c29968a491d#file-riscvinstrinfo_conventional-td>
and the "separate patterns" approach
<https://gist.github.com/asb/0c61ebc131076c6186052c29968a491d#file-riscvinstrinfo_separate_pats-td>.
Obviously once patterns and pseudo-instructions are separated out, you may
want to move them to a different .td file.
Does anyone have strong views on these sort of choices one way or another?
Best,
Alex
2017 Aug 18
2
RFC/bikeshedding: Separation of instruction and pattern definitions in LLVM backends
...e "conventional" approach
> > <https://gist.github.com/asb/0c61ebc131076c6186052c29968a49
> 1d#file-riscvinstrinfo_conventional-td>
> > and the "separate patterns" approach
> > <https://gist.github.com/asb/0c61ebc131076c6186052c29968a49
> 1d#file-riscvinstrinfo_separate_pats-td>.
> > Obviously once patterns and pseudo-instructions are separated out, you
> may
> > want to move them to a different .td file.
> >
> > Does anyone have strong views on these sort of choices one way or
> another?
>
> I do find the second easier to follow...