Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "vec256".
2015 Jan 05
3
[LLVMdev] Heads up! Planning to remove old vector shuffle lowering this week...
...t? I don't see any, but I'm curious about others. The silence on this thread didn't inspire confidence, but perhaps its just that nothing is broken with the new stuff?
>
> No notable regressions, I’m seeing different code but mostly for the better - although there are a number of vec256 shuffles (mostly lower/upper crossings) that are rather poor (I think Quentin raised bugs on a couple of these) - but the old system could be a lot worse.
I think Simon talks about PR21943, but this should not hold for moving forward.
> I think the few cases that remain can easily be dealt wit...
2015 Jan 04
2
[LLVMdev] Heads up! Planning to remove old vector shuffle lowering this week...
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Simon Pilgrim <llvm-dev at redking.me.uk>
wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2014, at 17:53, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll be skimming the PRs to see if there are any really critical
> regressions, but so far it looks pretty good.
> >
> > If you are actively disabling the new vector shuffling and have some PR