search for: vcmpps

...body (e.g. at Cray?) still actively working on it? I have tried both LLVM 2.9 final and the latest trunk, and it seems like some trivial stuff is already working and produces nice code for code using <8 x float>. Unfortunately, the backend gets confused about mask code as e.g. produced by VCMPPS together with mask operations (which LLVM requires to work on <8 x i32> atm) and corresponding bitcasts. Consider these two examples: define <8 x float> @test1(<8 x float> %a, <8 x float> %b, <8 x i32> %m) nounwind readnone { entry: %cmp = tail call <8 x floa...

...atched in tablegen files only by extending the 128-bit PatFrags and PatLeafs to their 256-bit counterparts should work, but besides that (which is where the interesting stuff happens) there's no support yet! > Unfortunately, the backend gets confused about mask code as e.g. > produced by VCMPPS together with mask operations (which LLVM requires to > work on <8 x i32> atm) and corresponding bitcasts. > > Consider these two examples: > > define <8 x float> @test1(<8 x float> %a, <8 x float> %b, <8 x i32> %m) > nounwind readnone { > entry: &...

...ly by > extending the 128-bit PatFrags and PatLeafs to their 256-bit > counterparts should work, but besides that (which is where the > interesting stuff happens) there's no support yet! > >> Unfortunately, the backend gets confused about mask code as e.g. >> produced by VCMPPS together with mask operations (which LLVM requires to >> work on<8 x i32> atm) and corresponding bitcasts. >> >> Consider these two examples: >> >> define<8 x float> @test1(<8 x float> %a,<8 x float> %b,<8 x i32> %m) >> nounwind...

...> %res >> } > > That would be nice indeed Some lowering code would be needed to convert from i1 masks to i8 masks (the so-called packed vs. sparse mask issue). I don't think I've added anything to do this as our vectorizer doesn't generate code this way. >> -> VCMPPS, VANDPS, BLENDVPS >> >> Nadav Rotem sent around a patch a few weeks ago in which he implemented >> codegen for the select for SSE, unfortunately I did not have time to >> look at it in more depth so far. >> >> Can anybody comment on the current status of AVX? &gt...