jhuber6 wrote: > In theory we can lower masked load/store on any target; it's just a question > of how terrible the resulting code is. And on a target that doesn't support > unaligned load/store, the answer is, pretty terrible. But basically > everything that supports vectors has unaligned access support these days. > > I'm a little concerned the argument types aren't what we want; it isn't great > that `__builtin_masked_load(mask,ptr)` is well-defined, but `*ptr` is not. > > We could use EmitPointerWithAlignment() here, and infer whatever alignment > that implies. Which allows users to access an unaligned load if they really > want. But unaligned vector types are weird: we allow using an "aligned" > attribute on typedefs, but we don't represent it as a qualifier internally, > so bad things happen with type canonicalization. > > Maybe we could consider changing the interface so it takes a pointer to the > element type of the returned vector, instead of a pointer to the returned > vector type.
I don't know why these intrinsics take alignment in the first place, the compress / expand variants don't. I think it'd be reasonable to change the intrinsics to derive alignment from the pointer and not an extra argument. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156063 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
