vhscampos marked an inline comment as done.
vhscampos added a comment.
Added support for `__clsll` as requested.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/arm_acle.h:150
+__clsl(unsigned long __t) {
+#if __SIZEOF_LONG__ == 4
+ return __builtin_arm_cls(__t);
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> vhscampos wrote:
> > compnerd wrote:
> > > vhscampos wrote:
> > > > compnerd wrote:
> > > > > I don't see a pattern match for the `cls64` on ARM32, would that not
> > > > > fail to lower?
> > > > Yes. However, for now, I am not enabling support for `cls64` on ARM32
> > > > as it is not done yet.
> > > Is the difference not just the parameter type? I think that implementing
> > > it should be a trivial change to the existing implementation. Is there a
> > > reason that you are not implementing that?
> > At clang's side, yes, but not in the backend: Arm32 does not have a `cls`
> > instruction, thus the CLS operations need to be custom lowered. In the
> > `llvm.arm.cls(i32)` case, lowering is quite simple, and it's been included
> > in this patch. For `llvm.arm.cls64(i64)`, on the other hand, it is not as
> > trivial since it's necessary to break its logic into 32-bit instructions.
> >
> > So the reason not to implement that (yet) is just to split work in two
> > different efforts.
> Would it not be sufficient to do the top half (after a shift right of
> 32-bits), and if it is exactly 32, then do the bottom 32-bits, otherwise,
> you're done?
Sort of. How we interpret the bottom half depends on the value of the top half.
I've added this custom lowering in the latest revision.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69250/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69250
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
