search for: 18446744073709551612ull

...39;t an issue in OpenCL since there is no variance in the sizeof(int) across devices. I think you're still misunderstanding. If size_t is 32 bits, sizeof(int) + -8LL is -4LL, so the comparison produces true. If it's 64 bits, the -8LL promotes to an unsigned long long, sizeof(int) + -8LL is 18446744073709551612ULL, the 0 promotes to 0ULL, and the comparison produces false. [Villmow, Micah] I see now, I think you had a type-o in the previous email, "sizeof(sizeof(int))" should have been size_t(sizeof(int)), which was throwing me off. I view this case as being well defined in SPIR. It can be produced...

...n issue in OpenCL since there is no > variance in the sizeof(int) across devices. I think you're still misunderstanding. If size_t is 32 bits, sizeof(int) + -8LL is -4LL, so the comparison produces true. If it's 64 bits, the -8LL promotes to an unsigned long long, sizeof(int) + -8LL is 18446744073709551612ULL, the 0 promotes to 0ULL, and the comparison produces false. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120912/e2932676/attachment.html>

...ices. > > > > > > > > I think you're still misunderstanding. If size_t is 32 bits, > sizeof(int) + > > -8LL is -4LL, so the comparison produces true. If it's 64 bits, the - > 8LL > > promotes to an unsigned long long, sizeof(int) + -8LL is > > 18446744073709551612ULL, the 0 promotes to 0ULL, and the comparison > produces > > false. > > > > [Villmow, Micah] I see now, I think you had a type-o in the previous > email, > > "sizeof(sizeof(int))" should have been size_t(sizeof(int)), which was > > throwing me off. I view...

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:22 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >

...no variance > in the sizeof(int) across devices. > > > > I think you're still misunderstanding. If size_t is 32 bits, sizeof(int) + > -8LL is -4LL, so the comparison produces true. If it's 64 bits, the -8LL > promotes to an unsigned long long, sizeof(int) + -8LL is > 18446744073709551612ULL, the 0 promotes to 0ULL, and the comparison produces > false. > > [Villmow, Micah] I see now, I think you had a type-o in the previous email, > “sizeof(sizeof(int))” should have been size_t(sizeof(int)), which was > throwing me off. I view this case as being well defined in SPIR. It...

...iance in the sizeof(int) across devices.**** > > ** ** > > I think you're still misunderstanding. If size_t is 32 bits, sizeof(int) + > -8LL is -4LL, so the comparison produces true. If it's 64 bits, the -8LL > promotes to an unsigned long long, sizeof(int) + -8LL > is 18446744073709551612ULL, the 0 promotes to 0ULL, and the comparison > produces false.**** > > *[Villmow, Micah] I see now, I think you had a type-o in the previous > email, “sizeof(sizeof(int))” should have been size_t(sizeof(int)), which > was throwing me off.* > What I wrote was what I meant. The *val...

...t;> > >> > I think you're still misunderstanding. If size_t is 32 bits, >> sizeof(int) + >> > -8LL is -4LL, so the comparison produces true. If it's 64 bits, the - >> 8LL >> > promotes to an unsigned long long, sizeof(int) + -8LL is >> > 18446744073709551612ULL, the 0 promotes to 0ULL, and the comparison >> produces >> > false. >> > >> > [Villmow, Micah] I see now, I think you had a type-o in the previous >> email, >> > "sizeof(sizeof(int))" should have been size_t(sizeof(int)), which was >>...