Yes, it looks good. I can deal with LDRcp and friends later.
Thanks.
Evan
On Jun 18, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Dan Gohman wrote:
>> We can eliminate LDRcp, that's fine.
>>
>> However, I still don't like the separate hook and targetinstrinfo
>> bit. Dan, can you have just a single isTriviallyReMateriali
> We can eliminate LDRcp, that's fine.
>
> However, I still don't like the separate hook and targetinstrinfo
> bit. Dan, can you have just a single isTriviallyReMaterializable hook
> that encompass all these?
What do you think about the attached patch? It's not tested yet, but it
shows what I
We can eliminate LDRcp, that's fine.
However, I still don't like the separate hook and targetinstrinfo
bit. Dan, can you have just a single isTriviallyReMaterializable hook
that encompass all these?
Evan
On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2007, at 7:46 AM, Dan
On Jun 18, 2007, at 7:46 AM, Dan Gohman wrote:
>> Is this necessary? ARM is already doing this by marking trivially re-
>> materializable instructions with let isReMaterializable = 1.
>
> It's not necessary, but it seems cleaner :-).
>
> In the ARM target, other than instructions that are always
> Is this necessary? ARM is already doing this by marking trivially re-
> materializable instructions with let isReMaterializable = 1.
It's not necessary, but it seems cleaner :-).
In the ARM target, other than instructions that are always trivially
rematerialiable, there's only LDR, with a ReMat
Hi Dan,
Is this necessary? ARM is already doing this by marking trivially re-
materializable instructions with let isReMaterializable = 1.
Evan
On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Dan Gohman wrote:
>
>
> Changes in directory llvm/lib/CodeGen:
>
> LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp updated: 1.246 -> 1.247
> Vir
