Displaying 20 results from an estimated 24 matches for "handleop".
Did you mean:
handle_p
2017 Jan 28
2
How to use op_test_callbacks ?
Hello.
I have succeffully open a memory buffer from a url-opus-file with (from Pascal fpc):
HandleOP := op_test_memory(BufferURL[0],PipeBufferSize, Err);
op_test_open(StreamIn[x].Data.HandleOP);
I can retrieve the tags infos, all seems ok.
But for reading, using this gives 0 outframes:
outframes := op_read_float(Data.HandleOP, at Buffer[0], Wantframesm, nil);
I suspect that some callback must...
2017 Jan 28
0
How to use op_test_callbacks ?
Fred van Stappen wrote:
> I have succeffully open a memory buffer from a url-opus-file with (from
> Pascal fpc):
>
> HandleOP := op_test_memory(BufferURL[0],PipeBufferSize, Err);
> op_test_open(StreamIn[x].Data.HandleOP);
>
> I can retrieve the tags infos, all seems ok.
>
> But for reading, using this gives 0 outframes:
>
> outframes := op_read_float(Data.HandleOP, at Buffer[0], Wantframesm, nil);
Ha...
2007 Sep 28
2
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
ExpandOp is not called at all.
In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is considered in
the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand.
As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in
TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is based on the
largest register class (in my case the smallest possible...
2007 Oct 01
2
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
...ber 28, 2007 5:01 PM
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:53 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>
<Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
> ExpandOp is not called at all.
> In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is
> considered in
> the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand.
> As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in
> TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is based on the
> largest register class (in my...
2007 Sep 29
0
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:53 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>
<Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
> ExpandOp is not called at all.
> In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is
> considered in
> the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand.
> As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in
> TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is based on the
> largest register class (in my...
2007 Oct 01
0
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
...elopers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:53 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>
> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
>
>> ExpandOp is not called at all.
>> In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is
>> considered in
>> the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand.
>> As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in
>> TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is based on the
>> largest reg...
2007 Oct 03
2
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
...elopers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:53 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>
> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
>
>> ExpandOp is not called at all.
>> In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is
>> considered in
>> the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand.
>> As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in
>> TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is based on the
>> largest reg...
2009 Feb 24
3
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [llvm] r65296 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ lib/Target/CellSPU/ lib/Target/PowerPC/ lib/Target/X86/ test/CodeGen/X86/
...Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0) at
PPCISelLowering.cpp:3766
#9 0x0051bed6 in (anonymous
namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp (this=0xbffff0e8,
Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:1608
#10 0x0054837d in (anonymous
namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp (this=0xbffff0e8, Op={Node
= 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:519
#11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous
namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG (this=0xbffff0e8) at
LegalizeDAG.cpp:389
#12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0,
TypesNeedLegalizing=false, Fast=fals...
2009 Feb 25
3
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [llvm] r65296 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ lib/Target/CellSPU/ lib/Target/PowerPC/ lib/Target/X86/ test/CodeGen/X86/
...0}, DAG=@0x16088a0)
> at PPCISelLowering.cpp:3766
> #9 0x0051bed6 in (anonymous
> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp (this=0xbffff0e8,
> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:1608
> #10 0x0054837d in (anonymous
> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp (this=0xbffff0e8,
> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:519
> #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous
> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG (this=0xbffff0e8) at
> LegalizeDAG.cpp:389
> #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0,
> TypesN...
2007 Oct 04
0
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
...bject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
>>
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:53 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>
>> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ExpandOp is not called at all.
>>> In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is
>>> considered in
>>> the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand.
>>> As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in
>>> TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is based on the
>...
2007 Oct 08
3
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
...bject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
>>
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:53 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>
>> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ExpandOp is not called at all.
>>> In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is
>>> considered in
>>> the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand.
>>> As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in
>>> TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is based on the
>...
2009 Feb 25
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [llvm] r65296 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ lib/Target/CellSPU/ lib/Target/PowerPC/ lib/Target/X86/ test/CodeGen/X86/
...= 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0) at
>> PPCISelLowering.cpp:3766
>> #9 0x0051bed6 in (anonymous namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp
>> (this=0xbffff0e8, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:1608
>> #10 0x0054837d in (anonymous namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp
>> (this=0xbffff0e8, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:519
>> #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG
>> (this=0xbffff0e8) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:389
>> #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0,
>>...
2009 Feb 25
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [llvm] r65296 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ lib/Target/CellSPU/ lib/Target/PowerPC/ lib/Target/X86/ test/CodeGen/X86/
...0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0) at
> PPCISelLowering.cpp:3766
> #9 0x0051bed6 in (anonymous namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp
> (this=0xbffff0e8, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:1608
> #10 0x0054837d in (anonymous namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp
> (this=0xbffff0e8, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:519
> #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG
> (this=0xbffff0e8) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:389
> #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0,
> TypesNeedLegalizing...
2007 Sep 28
0
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:10 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>
<Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
> Attached please find the gdb backtrace dump and the postscript file of
> the DAG right before assertion.
> The red Node is the current Node in LegalizeOp()
Okay, this is the problem. LegalizeOp should only be called on a
node if the VT is valid for the target.
2009 Mar 02
1
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [llvm] r65296 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ lib/Target/CellSPU/ lib/Target/PowerPC/ lib/Target/X86/ test/CodeGen/X86/
...gt;> at PPCISelLowering.cpp:3766
>> #9 0x0051bed6 in (anonymous
>> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp (this=0xbffff0e8,
>> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:1608
>> #10 0x0054837d in (anonymous
>> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp (this=0xbffff0e8,
>> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:519
>> #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous
>> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG (this=0xbffff0e8) at
>> LegalizeDAG.cpp:389
>> #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16...
2007 Oct 09
0
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
...g operations to 8-bit!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:53 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>
>>> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ExpandOp is not called at all.
>>>> In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is
>>>> considered in
>>>> the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand.
>>>> As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in
>>>> TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is b...
2007 Oct 09
1
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
...g operations to 8-bit!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:53 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>
>>> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ExpandOp is not called at all.
>>>> In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is
>>>> considered in
>>>> the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand.
>>>> As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in
>>>> TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is b...
2007 Sep 28
2
[LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!
Attached please find the gdb backtrace dump and the postscript file of
the DAG right before assertion.
The red Node is the current Node in LegalizeOp()
The only thing that I am customizing before we get here is the
FORMAL_ARGUMENTS. At this time I don't really care about the arguments,
just want to get some global values working. When I trace the program,
it is well passed the legalizing of
2006 Apr 26
1
[LLVMdev] LLC fail without gccld optimization on spec2000 int benchmarks
...egalize::LegalizeOp(llvm::SDOperand)+0xa318)[0x851262c]
/home/snir/jingyu/resources/llvm/build2/Debug/bin/llc((anonymous
namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::PromoteOp(llvm::SDOperand)+0x3030)[0x851c3cc]
/home/snir/jingyu/resources/llvm/build2/Debug/bin/llc((anonymous
namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp(llvm::SDOperand)+0xa9)[0x85080bf]
/home/snir/jingyu/resources/llvm/build2/Debug/bin/llc((anonymous
namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG()+0x236)[0x8507a4e]
/home/snir/jingyu/resources/llvm/build2/Debug/bin/llc(llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize()+0x48)[0x852848c]
/home/snir/jingyu/resources/llvm...
2009 Feb 24
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [llvm] r65296 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ lib/Target/CellSPU/ lib/Target/PowerPC/ lib/Target/X86/ test/CodeGen/X86/
Duncan:
I'm still stymied how this whole thread ended up about shuffle vector nodes,
when the original problem was my build vector patch. I'm still working on
backing the build vector patch out (it isn't clean with all of the
intervening commits and I have pressing management tasks which command my
attention.)
-scooter
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at