search for: stridevec

Hi Renato, Sorry for the delay in responding. We've been busy rethinking some of our changes after the feedback we've received thus far (particularly from the devmeeting). The incremental patches will use our revised design(which should be less invasive), and I'll be updating our document to match. On 16/11/2016, 12:46, "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>

...<n x 4 x i32> %elt, <n x 4 x i32> undef, <n x > 4 x i32> zeroinitializer > %step = insertelement <n x 4 x i32> undef, i32 -2, i32 0 > %widestep = shufflevector <n x 4 x i32> %step, <n x 4 x i32> undef, <n x > 4 x i32> zeroinitializer > %stridevec = mul <n x 4 x i32> stepvector, %widestep > %finalvec = add <n x 4 x i32> %widestart, %stridevec > ``` > > > > > Current patch set: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D27101 > https://reviews.llvm.org/D27102 > https://reviews.llvm.org/D27103 > https://reviews....

...flevector <n x 4 x i32> %elt, <n x 4 x i32> undef, <n x 4 x i32> zeroinitializer > %step = insertelement <n x 4 x i32> undef, i32 -2, i32 0 > %widestep = shufflevector <n x 4 x i32> %step, <n x 4 x i32> undef, <n x 4 x i32> zeroinitializer > %stridevec = mul <n x 4 x i32> stepvector, %widestep > %finalvec = add <n x 4 x i32> %widestart, %stridevec > ``` This is really fragile and confusing, and I agree with James, an intrinsic here would be *much* better. Something like %const_vec = <n x 4 x i32> @llvm.sve.constant_ve...