lebedev.ri marked an inline comment as done.
lebedev.ri added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp:14323
+ Result = Builder.CreateIntrinsic(
+ Intrinsic::ptrmask, {Args.SrcType, SrcForMask->getType(),
Args.IntType},
+ {SrcForMask, NegatedMask}, nullptr, "aligned_result");
----------------
arichardson wrote:
> lebedev.ri wrote:
> > Is sufficient amount of passes, analyses know about this intrinsic?
> Good question. In the simple test cases that I looked at the code generation
> was equivalent.
>
> In our fork we still use ptrtoint+inttoptr since I implemented them before
> the new intrinsic existed. But since the ptrmask instrinsic exists now I
> thought I'd use it for upstreaming.
> I'll investigate if this results in worse codegen for more complex uses.
>
(TLDR: before producing it in more cases in clang, i think it should be first
ensured
that everything in middle-end is fully aware of said intrinsic. (i.e. using it
vs it's
exploded form results in no differences in final assembly on a sufficient test
coverage))
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
