1
0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-10-24 21:42:54 +02:00
Commit Graph

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Michael Kuperstein
9b9d97f26a Use std::bitset for SubtargetFeatures.
Previously, subtarget features were a bitfield with the underlying type being uint64_t. 
Since several targets (X86 and ARM, in particular) have hit or were very close to hitting this bound, switching the features to use a bitset.
No functional change.

The first several times this was committed (e.g. r229831, r233055), it caused several buildbot failures.
Apparently the reason for most failures was both clang and gcc's inability to deal with large numbers (> 10K) of bitset constructor calls in tablegen-generated initializers of instruction info tables. 
This should now be fixed.

llvm-svn: 238192
2015-05-26 10:47:10 +00:00
Michael Kuperstein
5efc4deda0 Reverting r237234, "Use std::bitset for SubtargetFeatures"
The buildbots are still not satisfied.
MIPS and ARM are failing (even though at least MIPS was expected to pass).

llvm-svn: 237245
2015-05-13 10:28:46 +00:00
Michael Kuperstein
56a8e05a6b Use std::bitset for SubtargetFeatures
Previously, subtarget features were a bitfield with the underlying type being uint64_t. 
Since several targets (X86 and ARM, in particular) have hit or were very close to hitting this bound, switching the features to use a bitset.
No functional change.

The first two times this was committed (r229831, r233055), it caused several buildbot failures. 
At least some of the ARM and MIPS ones were due to gcc/binutils issues, and should now be fixed.

llvm-svn: 237234
2015-05-13 08:27:08 +00:00
Toma Tabacu
ecda89d18b [TableGen] Prevent invalid code generation when emitting AssemblerPredicate conditions.
Summary:
The loop which emits AssemblerPredicate conditions also links them together by emitting a '&&'.
If the 1st predicate is not an AssemblerPredicate, while the 2nd one is, nothing gets emitted for the 1st one, but we still emit the '&&' because of the 2nd predicate.
This generated code looks like "( && Cond2)" and is invalid.

Reviewers: dsanders

Reviewed By: dsanders

Subscribers: dsanders, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8294

llvm-svn: 234312
2015-04-07 12:10:11 +00:00