> @@ -129,7 +130,9 @@
> /// specified value type. This means that it has a register
> that directly
> /// holds it without promotions or expansions.
> bool isTypeLegal(MVT::ValueType VT) const {
> - return RegClassForVT[VT] != 0;
> + return !MVT::isExtendedValueType(VT) ?
> + RegClassForVT[VT] != 0 :
> + false;
> }
This could be written more naturally as:
return MVT::isSimpleVT(VT) && RegClassForVT[VT] != 0;
> @@ -147,9 +150,12 @@
> }
>
> LegalizeAction getTypeAction(MVT::ValueType VT) const {
> - return (LegalizeAction)((ValueTypeActions[VT>>4] >> ((2*VT)
> & 31)) & 3);
> + return !MVT::isExtendedValueType(VT) ?
> + (LegalizeAction)((ValueTypeActions[VT>>4] >> ((2*VT)
> & 31)) & 3) :
> + Expand;
> }
I think this would be more clear with an explicit:
if (MVT::isExtendedValueType(VT)) return Expand;
instead of ?: :)
> @@ -242,7 +253,9 @@
> /// expanded to some other code sequence, or the target has a
> custom expander
> /// for it.
> LegalizeAction getOperationAction(unsigned Op, MVT::ValueType
> VT) const {
> - return (LegalizeAction)((OpActions[Op] >> (2*VT)) & 3);
> + return !MVT::isExtendedValueType(VT) ?
> + (LegalizeAction)((OpActions[Op] >> (2*VT)) & 3) :
> + Expand;
> }
>
> /// isOperationLegal - Return true if the specified operation is
> legal on this
> @@ -257,7 +270,9 @@
> /// expanded to some other code sequence, or the target has a
> custom expander
> /// for it.
> LegalizeAction getLoadXAction(unsigned LType, MVT::ValueType VT)
> const {
> - return (LegalizeAction)((LoadXActions[LType] >> (2*VT)) & 3);
> + return !MVT::isExtendedValueType(VT) ?
> + (LegalizeAction)((LoadXActions[LType] >> (2*VT)) & 3) :
> + Expand;
> }
>
> /// isLoadXLegal - Return true if the specified load with
> extension is legal
> @@ -272,7 +287,9 @@
> /// expanded to some other code sequence, or the target has a
> custom expander
> /// for it.
> LegalizeAction getStoreXAction(MVT::ValueType VT) const {
> - return (LegalizeAction)((StoreXActions >> (2*VT)) & 3);
> + return !MVT::isExtendedValueType(VT) ?
> + (LegalizeAction)((StoreXActions >> (2*VT)) & 3) :
> + Expand;
> }
>
> /// isStoreXLegal - Return true if the specified store with
> truncation is
> @@ -287,7 +304,9 @@
> /// for it.
> LegalizeAction
> getIndexedLoadAction(unsigned IdxMode, MVT::ValueType VT) const {
> - return (LegalizeAction)((IndexedModeActions[0][IdxMode] >>
> (2*VT)) & 3);
> + return !MVT::isExtendedValueType(VT) ?
> + (LegalizeAction)((IndexedModeActions[0][IdxMode] >>
> (2*VT)) & 3) :
> + Expand;
> }
>
> /// isIndexedLoadLegal - Return true if the specified indexed
> load is legal
> @@ -303,7 +322,9 @@
> /// for it.
> LegalizeAction
> getIndexedStoreAction(unsigned IdxMode, MVT::ValueType VT) const {
> - return (LegalizeAction)((IndexedModeActions[1][IdxMode] >>
> (2*VT)) & 3);
> + return !MVT::isExtendedValueType(VT) ?
> + (LegalizeAction)((IndexedModeActions[1][IdxMode] >>
> (2*VT)) & 3) :
> + Expand;
> }
I think these would also be more clear with an explicit if stmt, but
if you disagree, feel free to leave them.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
