On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Eli Bendersky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Quentin Colombet <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > Just a thought, wouldn’t be better to add a hook in TargetSelectionDAGInfo > for pow, just like memset and memmove? > Indeed, I guess that pow intrinsics may have special handling in some > optimizations and I am afraid we lose those benefits with the proposed patch. > > What do you think? > > Hi Quentin, > > I suppose it can be useful, but IMHO it's an orthogonal issue to the Clang > change. Some targets (like PNaCl, and possibly others that split the > compilation to two distinct stages with bitcode in between) may decide that > the hardcoded pow-->intrinsic translation Clang currently does is not > necessarily desirable. The patch allows them to state so. Make sense. > It could probably be generalized even more by providing targets with a > stronger tool to state that they don't want intrinsics to be generated for > known lib calls. That would be great and I guess it would be the next step. I leave to the front-end specialist to comment on your patch :). Thanks for your answer. Cheers, -Quentin > As for the SelDAG side, targets can probably already customize it by > "legalizing" ISD::FPOW etc. in a special way? In any case, for > split-compilation uses that's way too late :-) > > Eli
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
