On Feb 5, 2008 2:40 PM, Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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. Th
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,
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
>
>
> 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 g
With or without...
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
>>> dependencie
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 ex
On Feb 5, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:07 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>>
>>> Author: johannes
>>> Date: Mon Feb 4 17:27:29 2008
>>> New Revision: 46727
>>>
>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?re
On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:07 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>
>> Author: johannes
>> Date: Mon Feb 4 17:27:29 2008
>> New Revision: 46727
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=46727&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Do not unconditionally redefine vec_e
On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> Author: johannes
> Date: Mon Feb 4 17:27:29 2008
> New Revision: 46727
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=46727&view=rev
> Log:
> Do not unconditionally redefine vec_ext_v16qi and
> vec_ext_v4si builtins. This is a hack; they sh
Author: johannes
Date: Mon Feb 4 17:27:29 2008
New Revision: 46727
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=46727&view=rev
Log:
Do not unconditionally redefine vec_ext_v16qi and
vec_ext_v4si builtins. This is a hack; they should
be defined here, then resolved in the X86 BE.
However there is
