On Feb 5, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: >> With or without... > > Right, I agree. The f.e. should do this unconditionally, > > -Chris
OK, maybe so. The trouble is people use those builtins that are linked to a particular instruction, and expect to get that instruction and nothing else. But I don't have much sympathy for those people:) >> On Feb 5, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> On Feb 5, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: >>> >>>>> That means you have to know whether you've got SSE4.1 in the FE. >>>>> This is not an insuperable obstacle, but I think it's better to >>>>> leave >>>>> target >>>>> dependencies in the BE when possible. >>>> >>>> Even with SSE4.1, it's a good idea to lower them to extract element >>>> instructions. X86ISelLoweringhas all the information necessary to >>>> determine what instructions to they should be selected to. >>> >>> Do you mean 'even without SSE4.1'? >>> >>> -Chris >>> _______________________________________________ >>> llvm-commits mailing list >>> llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits >> >> _______________________________________________ >> llvm-commits mailing list >> llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits > > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commits mailing list > llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
