search for: targettransform

Hi all, I'm looking for a place where to put the costs of vector (and scalar) cast operations for ARM, but I noticed the TargetTransform methods call the TargetLowering ones when unsure. Now, I'm not sure... Many casts on ARM are free, and I could build a list of cases where it is true, but should I put this on the lowering or the transform? My main motivation is to get the costs right for the vectorization pass, but I think t...

...rations table) then we need to add it to the cost table. Thanks, Nadav On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking for a place where to put the costs of vector (and scalar) cast operations for ARM, but I noticed the TargetTransform methods call the TargetLowering ones when unsure. > > Now, I'm not sure... > > Many casts on ARM are free, and I could build a list of cases where it is true, but should I put this on the lowering or the transform? My main motivation is to get the costs right for the vectorization...

On 25 January 2013 17:48, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > I think that we need to improve ::isTruncateFree, ::isZextFree, etc to > include all of the free conversions. Vector and Scalar. > Hi Nadav, Yes, and the question is: TargetLowering's isZExtFree or TargetTransform's isZExtFree? TargetTransform (TT) only has the free checks on types, while TargetLowering (TL) has on SDValue and destination type. For my purposes, I need the operation information, so I was going to implement on TL, but I can't see where the TT queries that, though BasicTTI queries isT...

> > TargetTransform (TT) only has the free checks on types, while TargetLowering (TL) has on SDValue and destination type. > Yes. This is a limitation of the current API. The design decision behind it was that in many cases you want to know the cost of IR before you generate it. For example, during vectorizatio...

.... We did not want to > write code to resemble ISel in order to estimate the cost. Is this > something that we can live with ? > It depends on the final design intentions. If these costs are only ever going to be used by the vectorization, or if other optimizations are going to start using TargetTransformInfo for cost information, than yes, it makes sense to begin focusing cost models on TTI. But if other passes call TL directly, then we might re-think the strategy. It looks to me that only lowering would need to call TL's costs, since they can be different than a more high level cost, and poss...

The functions that I placed in ScalarTargetTransformInfo are functions what were used by LSR and LowerInvoke. getJumpSize and getJumpAlignment are used by LowerInvoke. Do you suggest that I remove them from TargetLowering and keep them in ScalarTargetTransformInfo ? Thanks, Nadav On Oct 9, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com&...

...ying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of LLVMdev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: put commit messages in *-commits subject > lines? (Daniel Dunbar) > 2. Re: TargetLowering vs. TargetTransform (Nadav Rotem) > 3. Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: put commit messages in *-commits subject > lines? (Sebastian Pop) > 4. Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: put commit messages in *-commits subject > lines? (Daniel Dunbar) > 5. Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: put commit messages in *-commits...