search for: getallonesvalu

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "getallonesvalu".

Did you mean: getallonesvalue
2012 Jun 03
1
[LLVMdev] Constant::getAllOnesValue(): expected behaviour or bug?
Hi, I was playing with the Constant::getAllOnesValue() method and found that it doesn't handlesPointerTypes correctly. When receiving a "i32*" argument, it was returning with some big integer vector, such as <12113216 x i32>. When you call this method passing a PointerType, the following code is executed: 00152 VectorType *VTy...
2011 Feb 10
1
[LLVMdev] PR9112
...@@ // Otherwise take the unions of the known bit sets of the operands, // taking conservative care to avoid excessive recursion. if (Depth < MaxDepth - 1 && !KnownZero && !KnownOne) { + if (!P->getNumIncomingValues()) + return; KnownZero = APInt::getAllOnesValue(BitWidth); KnownOne = APInt::getAllOnesValue(BitWidth); for (unsigned i = 0, e = P->getNumIncomingValues(); i != e; ++i) { -- Jakub Staszak
2012 May 21
3
[LLVMdev] Bug in SUB expansion going back to LLVM 2.6
...ssert(TLI.isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::ADD, VT) && TLI.isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::XOR, VT) && "Don't know how to expand this subtraction!"); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::XOR, dl, VT, Node->getOperand(1), DAG.getConstant(APInt::getAllOnesValue(VT.getSizeInBits()), VT)); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, dl, VT, Tmp2, DAG.getConstant(1, VT)); Results.push_back(DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, dl, VT, Node->getOperand(0), Tmp1)); break; } The problem is Tmp2 is not initialized and should be Tmp1 instead. This code only is hit if the ar...
2012 May 21
0
[LLVMdev] Bug in SUB expansion going back to LLVM 2.6
...nLegalOrCustom(ISD::ADD, VT) && > TLI.isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::XOR, VT) && > "Don't know how to expand this subtraction!"); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::XOR, dl, VT, Node->getOperand(1), > DAG.getConstant(APInt::getAllOnesValue(VT.getSizeInBits()), VT)); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, dl, VT, Tmp2, DAG.getConstant(1, VT)); > Results.push_back(DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, dl, VT, Node->getOperand(0), Tmp1)); > break; > } > > > The problem is Tmp2 is not initialized and should be Tmp1 ins...
2009 May 21
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
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
2009 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
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
2009 May 21
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
...RHS, + DAG.getIntPtrConstant(i)); + Ops[i] = DAG.getNode(ISD::SETCC, dl, TLI.getSetCCResultType(TmpEltVT), + LHSElem, RHSElem, CC); + Ops[i] = DAG.getNode(ISD::SELECT, dl, EltVT, Ops[i], + DAG.getConstant(APInt::getAllOnesValue + (EltVT.getSizeInBits()), EltVT), + DAG.getConstant(0, EltVT)); + } + return DAG.getNode(ISD::BUILD_VECTOR, dl, VT, &Ops[0], NumElems); +} + +/// UnrollVectorOp - We know that the given vector has a legal type, however +/// the...