search for: isneg

OK, the code for sdivrem in APInt.h is wrong. Here's what's written: static void sdivrem(const APInt &LHS, const APInt &RHS, APInt &Quotient, APInt &Remainder) { if (LHS.isNegative()) { if (RHS.isNegative()) APInt::udivrem(-LHS, -RHS, Quotient, Remainder); else APInt::udivrem(-LHS, RHS, Quotient, Remainder); Quotient = -Quotient; Remainder = -Remainder; } else if (RHS.isNegative()) { APInt::udivrem(LHS, -RHS, Quotient, Remainder)...

I wrote the following bit of code static APInt FloorOfQuotient(APInt a, APInt b) { unsigned bits = a.getBitWidth(); APInt q(bits, 1), r(bits, 1); APInt::sdivrem(a, b, q, r); * errs() << "sdivrem(" << a << ", " << b << ") = (" << q << ", " << r << ")\n"; * if (r == 0) return q; else {

...ADT/StringExtras.h===================================================================--- include/llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h (revision 179701)+++ include/llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h (working copy)@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ return std::string(BufPtr, Buffer+11); } -static inline std::string utostr(uint64_t X, bool isNeg = false) {+static __declspec(noinline) inline std::string utostr(uint64_t X, bool isNeg = false) { char Buffer[21]; char *BufPtr = Buffer+21; Index: lib/Support/Host.cpp===================================================================--- lib/Support/Host.cpp (revision 179701)+++ lib/Support/H...

...============================================= > --- include/llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h (revision 179701) > +++ include/llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h (working copy) > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ > return std::string(BufPtr, Buffer+11); > } > > -static inline std::string utostr(uint64_t X, bool isNeg = false) { > +static __declspec(noinline) inline std::string utostr(uint64_t X, bool > isNeg = false) { > char Buffer[21]; > char *BufPtr = Buffer+21; > > Index: lib/Support/Host.cpp > =================================================================== > --- lib/Suppor...

...========== > > --- include/llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h (revision 179701) > > +++ include/llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h (working copy) > > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ > > return std::string(BufPtr, Buffer+11); > > } > > > > -static inline std::string utostr(uint64_t X, bool isNeg = false) { > > +static __declspec(noinline) inline std::string utostr(uint64_t X, bool > > isNeg = false) { > > char Buffer[21]; > > char *BufPtr = Buffer+21; > > > > Index: lib/Support/Host.cpp > > ====================================================...

...============== > > --- include/llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h (revision 179701) > > +++ include/llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h (working copy) > > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ > > return std::string(BufPtr, Buffer+11); > > } > > > > -static inline std::string utostr(uint64_t X, bool isNeg = false) { > > +static __declspec(noinline) inline std::string utostr(uint64_t X, bool > > isNeg = false) { > > char Buffer[21]; > > char *BufPtr = Buffer+21; > > > > Index: lib/Support/Host.cpp > > ==========================================================...

...const std::string&, const char*, unsigned int, bool, unsigned int)': /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp:446: warning: 'IsConstant' may be used uninitialized in this function Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp: In function 'bool isNegative(llvm::SCEVHandle)': /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp:2911: warning: control reaches end of non-void function

...ateValue(prog, 0u)); i->src(0).mod = Modifier(0); + i->postFactor = 0; i->setSrc(1, NULL); } else - if (imm0.isInteger(1) || imm0.isInteger(-1)) { + if (!i->postFactor && (imm0.isInteger(1) || imm0.isInteger(-1))) { if (imm0.isNegative()) i->src(t).mod = i->src(t).mod ^ Modifier(NV50_IR_MOD_NEG); i->op = i->src(t).mod.getOp(); @@ -797,7 +801,7 @@ ConstantFolding::opnd(Instruction *i, ImmediateValue &imm0, int s) i->src(0).mod = 0; i->setSrc(1, NULL);...

...ating point number then it must be 'fast'. + return !isa<ConstantFP>(MD->getOperand(0)); Here as well. + if (ConstantFP *CFP0 = dyn_cast_or_null<ConstantFP>(Op0)) { + APFloat Accuracy = CFP0->getValueAPF(); + Assert1(Accuracy.isNormal() && !Accuracy.isNegative(), + "fpmath accuracy not a positive number!", &I); To be pedantic for a moment, zero is not a positive number. What about asserting these individually to give us more clear asserts if they fire? That also makes the string easier to write: "fpmath accuracy is a...

...g at foldShuffledBinop(...), so maybe a naive question, but why not do similar shuffle canonicalizations on unary (or ternary) operations? That may be a better fix in the long run. > But glancing at Reassociate.cpp is scarier. It does a lot of stuff like > this: > if (BinaryOperator::isNeg(TheOp) || BinaryOperator::isFNeg(TheOp)) > X = BinaryOperator::getNegArgument(TheOp); > > I think that's going to fail without a (terrible) hack to treat the > proposed fneg as a binop. So that's probably a preliminary requirement: > find all uses of BinaryOperator::isF...

...End = A.sge(One) ? (Range.getUpper() - One) : Range.getLower(); // The exit value should be (End+A)/A. APInt ExitVal = (End + A).udiv(A); ConstantInt *ExitValue = ConstantInt::get(SE.getContext(), ExitVal); In gdb, $6 = {BitWidth = 8, {VAL = 254, pVal = 0xfe}} (gdb) p ExitVal.isNegative() $7 = true (gdb) p ExitValue->dump() i8 -2 $8 = void It looks like whenever the value of ExitVal is greater than 128, ExitValue is going to be negative. This makes getBackedgeTakenCount return a negative number, which does not make sense. Any thoughts ? Pranav -- Qualcomm Innovation...

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > I have 1 concern about adding an explicit fneg op to IR: > > Currently, fneg qualifies as a binop in IR (since there's no other way to > represent it), and we have IR transforms that are based on matching that > pattern (m_BinOp). With a proper unary fneg instruction, those transforms >

...; } break; + case OP_MAD: + if (imm0.isInteger(0)) { + i->op = OP_MOV; + i->setSrc(0, i->getSrc(2)); + i->setSrc(1, NULL); + i->setSrc(2, NULL); + } else + if (imm0.isInteger(1) || imm0.isInteger(-1)) { + if (imm0.isNegative()) + i->src(t).mod = i->src(t).mod ^ Modifier(NV50_IR_MOD_NEG); + if (s == 0) { + i->setSrc(0, i->getSrc(1)); + i->src(0).mod = i->src(1).mod; + } + i->setSrc(1, i->getSrc(2)); + i->src(1).mod = 0; +...

...e 'fast'. > + return !isa<ConstantFP>(MD->getOperand(0)); > > Here as well. > > + if (ConstantFP *CFP0 = dyn_cast_or_null<ConstantFP>(Op0)) { > + APFloat Accuracy = CFP0->getValueAPF(); > + Assert1(Accuracy.isNormal() && !Accuracy.isNegative(), > + "fpmath accuracy not a positive number!", &I); > > To be pedantic for a moment, zero is not a positive number. Zero is not allowed. The isNormal call will return false for zero. What about asserting > these individually to give us more clear asserts if the...

Here's a revised patch, plus patches showing how fpmath metadata could be turned on in clang and dragonegg (it seemed safest for the moment to condition on -ffast-math rather than on one of the flags implied by -ffast-math). Major changes: - The FPMathOperator class can no longer be used to change math settings, only to read them. Currently it can be queried for accuracy info. I split the

I'm having trouble understanding how APInts should be used. The APInt documentation states that it 'is a functional replacement for common case unsigned integer type', but I'm not seeing this because the internal logic is that the value is always treated as negative if the most significant bit is set. I'm interested in an add or sub that could be using a negative value. I

...n::Value::isMinusOne() const’: /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.h:158:58: error: ‘getSIntValue’ was not declared in this scope /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.h: In member function ‘bool __ubsan::Value::isNegative() const’: /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.h:163:58: error: ‘getSIntValue’ was not declared in this scope /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.cc: At global scope: /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/...

...al/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.h:158:58: > > error: ‘getSIntValue’ was not declared in this scope > > > /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.h: > > In member function ‘bool __ubsan::Value::isNegative() const’: > > > /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.h:163:58: > > error: ‘getSIntValue’ was not declared in this scope > > > /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.cc: > > At gl...

...() const’: > /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.h:158:58: > error: ‘getSIntValue’ was not declared in this scope > /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.h: > In member function ‘bool __ubsan::Value::isNegative() const’: > /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.h:163:58: > error: ‘getSIntValue’ was not declared in this scope > /local/home/mahesha/src/12th_Sep/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_value.cc: > At global scope: > /local/home/m...

Retrieving the high 32 bits of a signed multiply is rather annoying. It appears that the simplest way to do this is to compute the absolute value of the arguments, and perform a u32 x u32 -> u64 operation. If the arguments' signs differ, then negate the result. Since there is no u64 support in the cvt instruction, we have the perform the 2's complement negation "by hand".