search for: getboolvalue

...if power + 1 > width - 2 (or equivalently in this case, if power == width - 2) this will create a "wrapped" bit set: the upper bit and the lower width-2 bits will be set, leaving only bit width-2 zero. That isn't what you want, right? > + > + if ((mask & otherKnownZero).getBoolValue()) > + return true; > + > + return false; This can be more concisely written as just return (mask & otherKnownZero).getBoolValue(); > +} > + > /// WillNotOverflowSignedAdd - Return true if we can prove that: > /// (sext (add LHS, RHS)) === (add (sext LHS), (se...

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 have the condition of an ICmpInst in a variable called condition obtained doing GenericValue condition = getOperandValue(&I, SF); Now I would like to understand if the comparison was true or false. Is it correct to use condition.IntVal.getSExtValue() and if the value is 0 consider the true and if the value is -1 consider the condition false? I'm not sure because I was expecting

...lent. else if // ... the code above ... so that for signbit-only LHS the check below tests whether the RHS is non-negative. > + ComputeMaskedBits(RHS, mask, zeroes, ones); > + > + // At least one 0 > + if (zeroes.countPopulation()) This should be 'if (RHSKnownZero.getBoolValue())' / 'if (!!RHSKnownZero)' or similar. You don't need the actual number of set bits here, you just want to know whether it's zero. > + return true; > + } > + } > + > + { > + int width = RHS->getType()->getScalarSizeInBits(); This has alr...

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