search for: intotptr

...ddressing structure feels like a flat memory model starting from 0 >>> and the value "b" should be 65529. In your example where we know the >>> largest pointer is 64b, I would expect the final result to be the same >>> as doing a ptrtoint from int(1) to i64 and intotptr to int(2)*. >> [Villmow, Micah] So then if there is already a way to do this, what really is the benefit of adding a new instruction? >> Also there is a typo in my example, the second assignment should not have the '*'. I can add a new instruction if that >> is the recomm...

...ructure feels like a flat memory model starting from 0 >>>> and the value "b" should be 65529. In your example where we know the >>>> largest pointer is 64b, I would expect the final result to be the same >>>> as doing a ptrtoint from int(1) to i64 and intotptr to int(2)*. >>> [Villmow, Micah] So then if there is already a way to do this, what really is the benefit of adding a new instruction? >>> Also there is a typo in my example, the second assignment should not have the '*'. I can add a new instruction if that >>> i...

..., I feel that > the addressing structure feels like a flat memory model starting from 0 > and the value "b" should be 65529. In your example where we know the > largest pointer is 64b, I would expect the final result to be the same > as doing a ptrtoint from int(1) to i64 and intotptr to int(2)*. [Villmow, Micah] So then if there is already a way to do this, what really is the benefit of adding a new instruction? Also there is a typo in my example, the second assignment should not have the '*'. I can add a new instruction if that is the recommended behavior, but I think...

...t;> the addressing structure feels like a flat memory model starting from 0 >> and the value "b" should be 65529. In your example where we know the >> largest pointer is 64b, I would expect the final result to be the same >> as doing a ptrtoint from int(1) to i64 and intotptr to int(2)*. > [Villmow, Micah] So then if there is already a way to do this, what really is the benefit of adding a new instruction? > Also there is a typo in my example, the second assignment should not have the '*'. I can add a new instruction if that > is the recommended behavi...

...a flat memory model starting > from 0 > >>> and the value "b" should be 65529. In your example where we know > the > >>> largest pointer is 64b, I would expect the final result to be the > same > >>> as doing a ptrtoint from int(1) to i64 and intotptr to int(2)*. > >> [Villmow, Micah] So then if there is already a way to do this, what > really is the benefit of adding a new instruction? > >> Also there is a typo in my example, the second assignment should not > have the '*'. I can add a new instruction if that &gt...

...ptrtoint and intoptr, I feel that the addressing structure feels like a flat memory model starting from 0 and the value "b" should be 65529. In your example where we know the largest pointer is 64b, I would expect the final result to be the same as doing a ptrtoint from int(1) to i64 and intotptr to int(2)*. -- Mon Ping > This works for inttoptr and ptrtoint because there is an assumption that the pointer is always the same size. Maybe we even need to extend ptrtoint/inttoptr to handle this case by adding unsigned versions? > >> >> -- Mon Ping >> >>...

> -----Original Message----- > From: Mon P Wang [mailto:monping at apple.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:12 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Dan Gohman; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > Hi, > > On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > > > >