search for: dstti

I saw the description in llvm documenattion for sext is as the following : -- sext (CST to TYPE) Sign extend a constant to another type. The bit size of CST must be smaller or equal to the bit size of TYPE. Both types must be integers. But in the code of llvm-2.6, the judge condition just allow smaller to the bit size of TYPE as the following : case Instruction::SExt: return

Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> --- .../drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_emit_nvc0.cpp | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_emit_nvc0.cpp b/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_emit_nvc0.cpp index dfb093c..e38a3b8 100644 ---

Signed-off-by: Tobias Klausmann <tobias.johannes.klausmann at mni.thm.de> --- .../drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_driver.h | 1 + .../drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_from_tgsi.cpp | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_driver.h b/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_driver.h

previously, if we had something like: gl_ViewportIndex = idx; for(int i = 0; i < gl_in.length(); i++) { gl_Position = gl_in[i].gl_Position; EmitVertex(); } EndPrimitive(); we failed to set the right ViewportIndex. To resolve this, save the ViewportIndex and store it to the right register on each emit. This fixes the remaining piglit tests in ARB_viewport_array for nvc0. Note: Not

previously, if we had something like: gl_ViewportIndex = idx; for(int i = 0; i < gl_in.length(); i++) { gl_Position = gl_in[i].gl_Position; EmitVertex(); } EndPrimitive(); we failed to set the right ViewportIndex. To resolve this, save the ViewportIndex and store it to the right register on each emit. This fixes the remaining piglit tests in ARB_viewport_array for nvc0. Note: Not

I have a question about a problem I came across while I was adding support for aggregate va_arg expression in clang. The following is the example program I will use in this email. I compile the program with clang targeting mips. Note that I have not pushed all the changes I have made yet, so you will not be able to see the same results. $ clang -ccc-host-triple mipsel-unknown-linux

Running Tomb Raider on Nouveau I found some flicker caused by ignoring precise modifiers on variables inside Nouveau. This series add precise/invariant handling to TGSI, which can be then used by drivers to disable certain unsafe optimisations which may otherwise alter calculations, which depend on having the same result across shaders. This series fixes this bug in Tomb Raider and one CTS test

Hi Hal, On Feb 4, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Arnold Schwaighofer" <aschwaighofer at apple.com> >> Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com>, "Hal

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? > I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would > mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more

On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman > <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector >> >> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from >> >> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? >> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would >> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction

Hi Sanjay, Thanks, I saw this flag and it's definitely should be considered, but it appeared to me to be static characteristic of target platform. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to change its value from a front-end. It says "Has", while optional flag would rather say "Uses" meaning that implementation cares about floating point exceptions. Regards, Sergey

Hi again, It's partially done. My concern is that it won't be accepted as is because of adding the flag parameter in a lot of places. I'd like to show what it looks like (here, not on llvm-commit yet), maybe someone could suggest a better way. There are two sources of the flag: field of TargetOptions and function attribute. I had to add the later one for InstCombine pass. Still