Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "sextw_r".
Did you mean:
sextb_r
2009 Apr 20
4
[LLVMdev] Unnecessary moves after sign-extension in 2-address target
...s this:
********** REWRITING TWO-ADDR INSTRS **********
********** Function: sext
%reg1028<def> = sextb_r %reg1025<kill>
prepend: %reg1028<def> = mov_rr %reg1025<kill>
rewrite to: %reg1028<def> = sextb_r %reg1028
...
%reg1030<def> = sextw_r %reg1026<kill>
prepend: %reg1030<def> = mov_rr %reg1026<kill>
rewrite to: %reg1030<def> = sextw_r %reg1030
Because sextb_r and sextw_r have destination tied to source operands,
TwoAddressInstructionPass thinks it needs a copy. However, since the
sext...
2009 Apr 21
0
[LLVMdev] Unnecessary moves after sign-extension in 2-address target
...TWO-ADDR INSTRS **********
> ********** Function: sext
> %reg1028<def> = sextb_r %reg1025<kill>
> prepend: %reg1028<def> = mov_rr %reg1025<kill>
> rewrite to: %reg1028<def> = sextb_r %reg1028
> ...
> %reg1030<def> = sextw_r %reg1026<kill>
> prepend: %reg1030<def> = mov_rr %reg1026<kill>
> rewrite to: %reg1030<def> = sextw_r %reg1030
>
> Because sextb_r and sextw_r have destination tied to source operands,
> TwoAddressInstructionPass thinks it needs a copy....
2009 Apr 21
0
[LLVMdev] Unnecessary moves after sign-extension in 2-address target
On Apr 19, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Greg McGary wrote:
>
> Because sextb_r and sextw_r have destination tied to source operands,
> TwoAddressInstructionPass thinks it needs a copy. However, since the
> sext kills its source, the copy is unnecessary. Why does this happen?
> Is TwoAddressInstructionPass relying on a later pass to notice this
> and
> transform it agai...
2009 Apr 21
3
[LLVMdev] Unnecessary moves after sign-extension in 2-address target
Dan Gohman wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Greg McGary wrote:
>
>> Because sextb_r and sextw_r have destination tied to source operands,
>> TwoAddressInstructionPass thinks it needs a copy. However, since the
>> sext kills its source, the copy is unnecessary. Why does this happen?
>> Is TwoAddressInstructionPass relying on a later pass to notice this
>> and
>&g...
2009 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] Unnecessary moves after sign-extension in 2-address target
On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Greg McGary wrote:
> Dan Gohman wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Greg McGary wrote:
>>
>>> Because sextb_r and sextw_r have destination tied to source
>>> operands,
>>> TwoAddressInstructionPass thinks it needs a copy. However, since
>>> the
>>> sext kills its source, the copy is unnecessary. Why does this
>>> happen?
>>> Is TwoAddressInstructionPass rel...