Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "known_bits".
Did you mean:
unknown_bits
2008 Jun 06
0
[LLVMdev] Troubling promotion of return value to Integer ...
...we have.
>
> These will be useful. But is it possible to be more generic?
> sext_from type where type can be any type? The value of the
> attribute would somehow tells us the type before extension?
Why not the values codegen is actually looking for? Say, these
attributes:
known_bits(mask, bits) ; Partially known values.
sign_bits(num) ; Number of leading sign extended bits.
Example:
; unsigned char f(bool, signed char)
define i32 known_bits(0xFFFFFF00, 0)
@f(i32 known_bits(0xFFFFFFFE, 0) %b,
i32 sign_bits(25) %c)
If the attr...
2008 Jun 04
4
[LLVMdev] Troubling promotion of return value to Integer ...
On May 29, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote:
>
>
> 4) There will be 4 new function attributes:
> sign_ext_from_i8, sign_ext_from_i16
> zero_ext_from_i8, zero_ext_from_i16
> These attributes will be placed on the function CALL node by
> front-end
> to inform the backend about such promotions and enable optimization
> of
> return
2008 Jun 07
3
[LLVMdev] Troubling promotion of return value to Integer ...
...se will be useful. But is it possible to be more generic?
>> sext_from type where type can be any type? The value of the
>> attribute would somehow tells us the type before extension?
>
> Why not the values codegen is actually looking for? Say, these
> attributes:
>
> known_bits(mask, bits) ; Partially known values.
> sign_bits(num) ; Number of leading sign extended bits.
Yes, this would be much nicer. The only issue is that attributes are
currently a bitfield, so they can't be parameterized. I'd love to see
this get fixed. Another issue with...