This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL246083: [X86][SSE] Add _mm_undefined_* intrinsics (authored
by RKSimon).
Changed prior to commit:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12052?vs=32514&id=33249#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12
mkuper added a comment.
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, a generic builtin most probably won't
be more elegant.
LGTM.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12052
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.
mkuper added a comment.
I think this is slightly less elegant than having a generic builtin, but I'm
just fine with it, especially if David/Eric prefer it to the generic version.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12052
___
cfe-commits
RKSimon updated this revision to Diff 32514.
RKSimon added a comment.
Added ia32 builtin undef intrinsics (I didn't bother with the mmx as I can't
find any evidence of an undefined intrinsic for it). Added the avx512
intrinsics referenced in the intel intrinsics guide.
Technically there's nothi
...@gmail.com; Kuperstein, Michael M
Cc: david.majne...@gmail.com; Badouh, Asaf; cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org; Richard
Smith
Subject: Re: [PATCH] D12052: [X86][SSE] Add _mm_undefined_* intrinsics
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:05 AM Simon Pilgrim
mailto:llvm-...@redking.me.uk>> wrote:
RKSimon added a c
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:05 AM Simon Pilgrim
wrote:
> RKSimon added a comment.
>
> Yes using that uninitialized value has worried me as well. I originally
> set it to zero (and considered using __ LINE __ or __ COUNTER __) but both
> introduce defined behaviour that I could see causing all sorts
RKSimon added a comment.
Yes using that uninitialized value has worried me as well. I originally set it
to zero (and considered using __ LINE __ or __ COUNTER __) but both introduce
defined behaviour that I could see causing all sorts of problems further down
the line in debug vs release builds
majnemer added a subscriber: majnemer.
majnemer added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12052#225194, @mkuper wrote:
> Thanks, Simon!
> I've wanted to add the _undefined intrinsics for a while now, but never got
> to it.
>
> Anyway, this sort of implementation somewhat worries me.
> Yes,
mkuper added a comment.
Thanks, Simon!
I've wanted to add the _undefined intrinsics for a while now, but never got to
it.
Anyway, this sort of implementation somewhat worries me.
Yes, I know that the gcc intrinsics do something very similar.
And I also know that in practice we'll get an undef
