spatel added a comment. In D87188#2348343 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87188#2348343>, @spatel wrote:
> In D87188#2348326 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87188#2348326>, @nikic wrote: > >> Reopening this so we don't forget... >> >> I believe @spatel is working on the cost modelling. I did not have much luck >> tracking down the miscompile, at least did not spot anything incriminating >> in the llvm-diff. > > Yes, I'm working through the mess of the TTI cost model with things like: > c963bde0152a > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGc963bde0152a741d58b9e1e9ac485d8f2e6c6d58> > It's a slog... D90554 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90554> / f7eac51b9b <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGf7eac51b9b3f780c96ca41913293851c5acb465b> I think that change makes this patch ready to try again. If we do see regressions, then it should now be easy to adjust target-specific cost modeling of abs() intrinsics to fix those. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87188/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87188 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
