search for: vunpcklp

...this code: if (X86::isUNPCKLMask(SVOp)) getTargetShuffleNode(getUNPCKLOpcode(VT) dl, VT, V1, V2, DAG); why would this not be: if (X86::isUNPCKLMask(SVOp)) return SVOp; I'm trying to add support for VUNPCKL and am getting into trouble because the existing code ends up creating: VUNPCKLPS load load which is badness come selection time. Legalize doesn't get a chance to look below the target shuffle node to see that there are two memory operands. Back in the 2.7 days, we used to just return the shuffle as is if it was already legal. Why the change to create a target node?...

...de(VT) dl, VT, V1, V2, DAG); > > why would this not be: > > if (X86::isUNPCKLMask(SVOp)) > return SVOp; Ok, I discovered that Bruno did this in revisions 112934, 112942 and 113020 but the logs don't really make clear why. I did figure out that I needed new SDNode defs for VUNPCKLPSY and VUNPCKLPDY and corresponding patterns. Once I added them everything started working. I found this all very confusing because it appears there are now two ways to match certain shuffle instructions in .td files: one through the traditional shuffle operators like unpckl and shufp and another...

...gt;> why would this not be: >> >> if (X86::isUNPCKLMask(SVOp)) >> return SVOp; > > Ok, I discovered that Bruno did this in revisions 112934, 112942 and > 113020 but the logs don't really make clear why. I did figure out that > I needed new SDNode defs for VUNPCKLPSY and VUNPCKLPDY and corresponding > patterns. Once I added them everything started working. > > I found this all very confusing because it appears there are now two > ways to match certain shuffle instructions in .td files: one through the > traditional shuffle operators like unpc...