> Generalize MVT::ValueType and associated functions to be able to
> represent
> extended vector types.
Whoa, I'm surprised to see this so soon!
> @@ -45,10 +46,6 @@
>
> isVoid = 12, // This has no value
>
> - Vector = 13, // This is an abstract vector type,
> which will
> - // be expanded into a target vector
> type, or scalars
> - // if no matching vector type is
> available.
> -
> v8i8 = 14, // 8 x i8
> v4i16 = 15, // 4 x i16
> v2i32 = 16, // 2 x i32
Should the value of these all slide up to avoid the hole at "13"?
> @@ -76,64 +73,55 @@
> iPTR = 255
is 255 a good sentinel for iPTR anymore? Would we gain anything by
making SimpleTypeBits less than 8?
> + /// MVT::ValueType - This type holds low-level value types.
> Valid values
> + /// include any of the values in the SimpleValueType enum, or
> any value
> + /// returned from a function in the MVT namespace that has a
> ValueType
> + /// return type. Any value type equal to one of the
> SimpleValueType enum
> + /// values is a "simple" value type. All other value types are
> "extended".
> + ///
> + /// Note that simple doesn't necessary mean legal for the target
> machine.
> + /// All legal value types must be simple, but often there are
> some simple
> + /// value types that are not legal.
> + typedef uint32_t ValueType;
This would be a great place to talk about what non-simple value types
currently exist, and how they are encoded.
> + /// MVT::isExtendedValueType - Test if the given ValueType is
> extended
> + /// (as opposed to being simple).
> + static inline bool isExtendedValueType(ValueType VT) {
> + return VT & ~SimpleTypeMask;
> }
I notice that several places use !MVT::isExtendedValueType(VT).
Please add MVT::isSimpleValueType()
Would it make sense to shrinkify these to MVT::isExtendedVT() and
MVT::isSimpleVT()? ValueType and the namespace are somewhat
redundant with each other.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
