search for: vecinit9

...5 = sitofp i32 %vecext4 to float %conv8 = sitofp i32 %vecext7 to float %vecinit = insertelement <4 x float> undef, float %conv, i32 0 %vecinit3 = insertelement <4 x float> %vecinit, float %conv2, i32 1 %vecinit6 = insertelement <4 x float> %vecinit3, float %conv5, i32 2 %vecinit9 = insertelement <4 x float> %vecinit6, float %conv8, i32 3 ret <4 x float> %vecinit9 } Is equivalent to: define dso_local <4 x float> @testv(<4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b) { entry: %shuffle = shufflevector <4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b, <4 x i32> <i...

...conv8 = sitofp i32 %vecext7 to float >> %vecinit = insertelement <4 x float> undef, float %conv, i32 0 >> %vecinit3 = insertelement <4 x float> %vecinit, float %conv2, i32 1 >> %vecinit6 = insertelement <4 x float> %vecinit3, float %conv5, i32 2 >> %vecinit9 = insertelement <4 x float> %vecinit6, float %conv8, i32 3 >> ret <4 x float> %vecinit9 >> } >> >> Is equivalent to: >> define dso_local <4 x float> @testv(<4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b) { >> entry: >> %shuffle = shufflevector...

I have added a few PPC-specific DAG combines in the past that follow this pattern on specific operations. Now that it appears that this would be useful to do on yet another operation, I'm wondering what people think about doing this in the target-independent DAG Combiner for any legal/custom operation on the target. TL; DR; The generic pattern would look like this: (build_vector (op