Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "getbitsusedbytype".
2007 Oct 07
5
[LLVMdev] The definition of getTypeSize
...that getTypeSizeInBits corresponds to (1) and (2), as
shown by it returning 36 for i36. This is like gcc's TYPE_PRECISION,
and is a useful concept - but I think the name should be changed, since
right now it implicitly suggests it returns 8*getTypeSize. If no one
objects, I will rename it to getBitsUsedByType.
Currently getTypeSize doesn't seem to correspond to any of these possibilities,
at least for APInt's: the current implementation returns the APInt bitwidth rounded
up to a multiple of the alignment. That makes it sound like it's trying to be (5).
I think getTypeSize should be defined...
2007 Oct 08
0
[LLVMdev] The definition of getTypeSize
...responds to (1) and (2), as
> shown by it returning 36 for i36. This is like gcc's TYPE_PRECISION,
> and is a useful concept - but I think the name should be changed,
> since
> right now it implicitly suggests it returns 8*getTypeSize. If no one
> objects, I will rename it to getBitsUsedByType.
Isn't it the other way around? Type information should be specified
in bits, not in bytes. So getTypeSizeInBits returns the exact size in
bits. I don't see how the new name is any clearer. I actually prefer
the current name.
>
> Currently getTypeSize doesn't seem to corre...
2007 Oct 08
3
[LLVMdev] The definition of getTypeSize
...as
> > shown by it returning 36 for i36. This is like gcc's TYPE_PRECISION,
> > and is a useful concept - but I think the name should be changed,
> > since
> > right now it implicitly suggests it returns 8*getTypeSize. If no one
> > objects, I will rename it to getBitsUsedByType.
>
> Isn't it the other way around? Type information should be specified
> in bits, not in bytes. So getTypeSizeInBits returns the exact size in
> bits. I don't see how the new name is any clearer. I actually prefer
> the current name.
For me the problem is that "...
2007 Oct 09
0
[LLVMdev] The definition of getTypeSize
...r i36. This is like gcc's
>>> TYPE_PRECISION,
>>> and is a useful concept - but I think the name should be changed,
>>> since
>>> right now it implicitly suggests it returns 8*getTypeSize. If no
>>> one
>>> objects, I will rename it to getBitsUsedByType.
>>
>> Isn't it the other way around? Type information should be specified
>> in bits, not in bytes. So getTypeSizeInBits returns the exact size in
>> bits. I don't see how the new name is any clearer. I actually prefer
>> the current name.
>
> For me the...