Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "countleadingones".
2016 Jul 21
2
FreeBSD user willing to try fix a unit test?
...st:
// XFAIL this test on FreeBSD where the system gcc-4.2.1 seems to miscompile it.
#if defined(__llvm__) || !defined(__FreeBSD__)
TEST(APIntTest, i33_Count) {
APInt i33minus2(33, static_cast<uint64_t>(-2), true);
EXPECT_EQ(0u, i33minus2.countLeadingZeros());
EXPECT_EQ(32u, i33minus2.countLeadingOnes());
EXPECT_EQ(33u, i33minus2.getActiveBits());
EXPECT_EQ(1u, i33minus2.countTrailingZeros());
EXPECT_EQ(32u, i33minus2.countPopulation());
EXPECT_EQ(-2, i33minus2.getSExtValue());
EXPECT_EQ(((uint64_t)-2)&((1ull<<33) -1), i33minus2.getZExtValue());
}
#endif
Given that we are l...
2009 Jan 20
0
[LLVMdev] cygwin build patch
On Jan 20, 2009, at 1:22 AM, Jay Foad wrote:
>>> I realise that the DataTypes.h.in part might be controversial. Also,
>>> there's probably a better place to put it, but I'm not sure where.
>>
>> I didn't apply this part. What problems does it cause to not have
>> this? Can we fix uses of max and min?
>
> I could try to fix this by changing
2013 Sep 11
0
[LLVMdev] removing unnecessary ZEXT
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for the suggestion.
I've looked at CodeGenPrepare.cpp and MoveExtToFormExtLoad() is never run.
I also notice that the ARM target produces the same additional register usage (copy) and zero extending (of the copy).
(See the usage of r3 &r5 and also r12 & r4 in attached file arm-strcspn.s, my understanding is that 'ldrb' is zero extending.)
Here is a
2013 Sep 11
2
[LLVMdev] removing unnecessary ZEXT
On Sep 10, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Robert Lytton <robert at xmos.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A bit more information.
> I believe my problem lies with the fact that the load is left as 'anyext from i8'.
> On the XCore target we know this will become an 8bit zext load - as there is no 8bit sign extended load!
> If BB#1 were to force the load to a "zext from i8" would
2009 Jan 20
4
[LLVMdev] cygwin build patch
>> I realise that the DataTypes.h.in part might be controversial. Also,
>> there's probably a better place to put it, but I'm not sure where.
>
> I didn't apply this part. What problems does it cause to not have
> this? Can we fix uses of max and min?
I get these errors in lib:
.../lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp:162: error: no matching function
for call to