<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - swr doesn't compile with current LLVM 7.0 snapshots" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107146#c1">Comment # 1</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - swr doesn't compile with current LLVM 7.0 snapshots" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107146">bug 107146</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:sroland@vmware.com" title="Roland Scheidegger <sroland@vmware.com>"> Roland Scheidegger</a> <pre>(In reply to Bernhard Rosenkraenzer from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=107146#c0">comment #0</a>) > createInstructionSimplifierPass() has been removed in LLVM. This is used in > a few places in SWR; looks like this can safely be removed because it is > always preceded by createInstructionCombiningPass() which seems to be a > superset of what createInstructionSimplifierPass() used to do. > > Fixing this just unmasks another problem though - > Intrinsic::x86_fma_vfmadd_ps_256 is gone. Not sure how to replace that > properly. I believe the caller doesn't actually care if it's fma or fmul/fadd combo. In this case it should just be replaced with llvm.fmuladd - this works will all (supported by swr) llvm versions, and you don't need to distinguish in the caller if the cpu supports fma or not, llvm will automatically emit either fma or fmul/fadd.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>