ostannard added a reviewer: simon_tatham.
ostannard added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets/ARM.cpp:443
HasLegalHalfType = true;
+ HW_FP |= HW_FP_SP | HW_FP_DP | HW_FP_HP;
+ FPU |= VFP4FPU;
----------------
Is it always correct to set HW_FP_DP here, now that MVE can have full fp16
without double-precision? I'll add Simon since he's working on that.
================
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets/ARM.cpp:444
+ HW_FP |= HW_FP_SP | HW_FP_DP | HW_FP_HP;
+ FPU |= VFP4FPU;
} else if (Feature == "+dotprod") {
----------------
Should this be FPARMV8, since fullfp16 doesn't apply to earlier architectures?
Maybe MVE complicates this even further?
================
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets/ARM.cpp:446
} else if (Feature == "+dotprod") {
+ FPU |= NeonFPU;
+ HW_FP |= HW_FP_SP | HW_FP_DP;
----------------
Should this also add FPARMV8?
================
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets/ARM.cpp:452
+ HasLegalHalfType = true;
+ FPU |= VFP4FPU;
+ HW_FP |= HW_FP_SP | HW_FP_DP | HW_FP_HP;
----------------
Again, should this be FPARMV8?
================
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets/ARM.cpp:453
+ FPU |= VFP4FPU;
+ HW_FP |= HW_FP_SP | HW_FP_DP | HW_FP_HP;
}
----------------
You are adding HW_FP_HP twice.
================
Comment at: test/CodeGen/arm_neon_intrinsics.c:8
+// RUN: %clang -O1 -target armv8a-linux-eabi -march=armv8a+fp16fml\
+// RUN: -S -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s.v8
+
----------------
Does the generate code differ enough to have a second copy of it? Actually, I
assume the problem here is that we are not setting the correct preprocessor
macros? in which case, it would be better to test them directly, than by
re-running this 21kloc test.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60828/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60828
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
