This, and the question of whether to make LSBaseNode store a
MemOperand
instead of separate fields, are related.
Ok, right. What is your opinion on this? Is there any reason not to
give MemOperand a VT and then give LSBaseNode a MemOperand?
There's a little redundancy; the MemOperand has
On Feb 12, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Dan Gohman wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the careful review! I've responded to parts of it already,
and I'll
be responding to more soon.
Thanks Dan!
On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the careful review! I've responded to parts of it already,
and I'll
be responding to more soon.
On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
Instead of Size here, would it make sense to store an MVT? That would
seem to capture strictly more information, thought
On Feb 12, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Dan Gohman wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the careful review! I've responded to parts of it already,
and I'll
be responding to more soon.
Thanks Dan!
On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
Instead of Size here, would it make sense to store an MVT?
On Feb 6, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Dan Gohman wrote:
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=46827view=rev
Log:
Create a new class, MemOperand, for describing memory references
in the backend. Introduce a new SDNode type, MemOperandSDNode, for
holding a MemOperand in the SelectionDAG IR, and
