search for: getbitsset

APInt::getBitsSet's loBit and hiBit arguments describe a range that's inclusive on both ends. Would anyone mind if we change it to be a "half-open" range, meaning exclusive on the high end? Currently every caller (including several new ones in some code I'm writing right now) does a subt...

...#39;d reuse the old mask variable as suggested above you'd need this, but see below. > + > + // Disregarding the sign bit > + for (int i = (width - 2); i > power; i--) > + mask.setBit(i); I think this is equivalent to if (power < width-2) mask = APInt::getBitsSet(width, power+1, width-2); else mask.clearAllBits(); (This would mean the clearAllBits() above would again be redundant) However, a nice way to handle the signbit-only case would be to wrap that in an extra if as follows: if (power == width - 1) mask = APInt::getSignBit(width); // Alter...

...ng width back to int isn't a disaster. (Who needs integers with over 2 million bits anyway?) Alternatively, since you know 'power' is non-negative here you can safely cast it to unsigned for the comparison. > + mask = APInt::getSignBit(width); > + else > + mask = APInt::getBitsSet(width, power + 1, width - 2); You removed the 'if (power < width-2)' case from the code I mentioned as equivalent to your loop. Because of this, if power + 1 > width - 2 (or equivalently in this case, if power == width - 2) this will create a "wrapped" bit set: the upper bi...

Hi! I've attached a patch which takes care of the issues mentioned (and adds two tests). -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ripple-bucket.diff Type: text/x-diff Size: 3318 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110308/0814e3e8/attachment.diff>

Hi all! I've been tinkering with LLVM's code-base for a few days, hoping to start on one of the ideas mentioned in the "Open Projects" page (I was told 'Improving the current system'/'Miscellaneous Improvements'/5 would be a good start). While I was at it, I also took a stab at finishing up one of the TODOs. I've attached the patch for review. --

Hi As I understand live variable analysis will set the def/kill properties of operands. In that case, is it still needed to set the kill flags when possible during lowering? thanks dz