simon_tatham added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMFixCortexA57AES1742098Pass.cpp:12-19
+// The intention is this:
+// - Any 128-bit or 64-bit writes to the neon input register of an AES fused
+// pair are safe (the inputs are to the AESE/AESD instruction).
+// - Any 32-bit writes to the input register are unsafe, but these may happen
+// in another function, or only on some control flow paths. In these cases,
+// conservatively insert the VORRq anyway.
+// - So, analyse both inputs to the AESE/AESD instruction, inserting a VORR if
----------------
This description would leave me still confused if I didn't happen to already
know roughly what the plan was. It jumps in half way through the explanation
that someone would need if they were coming to this pass cold. (E.g. it talks
about "the VORRq" before having even mentioned //that// there is one, let alone
//why// there is one.)
How about the suggested text as a rewording?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMFixCortexA57AES1742098Pass.cpp:310
+
+ // If there are no unsafe unsafe definitions...
+ if (UnsafeCount == 0) {
----------------
nit: repeated word
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119720/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119720
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
